Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PERTH CORPORATION WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Perth Corporation Water," presented by Sir JOHN GILMOUR; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL STEAMSHIP SERVICE.

Mr. HANNON: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the advantages offered to India by the scheme of a projected new Imperial line of fast steamships in reducing the mail transit time between England and Bombay by five days and the all-sea voyage between England and Bombay by seven days, and providing for the first time a fortnightly service of fast
ships between Australia and India, offering facilities for a rapid growth of trade between those countries; and whether, in view of the advantages which India and Australia would derive from such improved ocean communication, he is in a position to give an assurance that the Indian Government will co-operate with the Australian Commonwealth Government in the promotion of the scheme?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given last Monday to the hon. Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).

Mr. HANNON: Has the Indian Government given any consideration to this problem?

Earl WINTERTON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave last Monday:
The proposals referred to are under the consideration of a Committee of the Imperial Conference, and my Noble Friend is therefore not at present in a position to give any indication as to any action which His Majesty's Government or the Government of India may take in the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1926; col. 1523, Vol. 199.]

Mr. HANNON: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has under consideration a scheme for the establishment of an Imperial fast ship service, consisting of seven new large 22-knot ships of a type which does not
now exist, between Great Britain and Australia, via India and Ceylon, for the carriage of mails, passengers, and refrigerated and general cargo; and whether, seeing that the proposed service has received the approval of the Prime Minister of the Australian Commonwealth, and in view of the advantages which the proposed new service could provide for the extension of inter-Imperial trade, not only between Great Britain and Australia, but between Great Britain and India and between Australia and India, it will receive the support of His Majesty's Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): It is not possible at present to add anything to the reply which I gave on the 9th November to questions on this subject addressed to me by the hon. Members for South Shields, Islington North, Kirkdale and Richmond.

Mr. HANNON: May I put another question down in the course of a fortnight or so?

Mr. AMERY: I think if my hon. Friend does so in the course of a, week, I can, at any rate, tell him what the Conference has decided.

Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the existing subsidy will expire?

Mr. AMERY: Not without notice. That is a question for the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

INDIAN SUBJECTS, SOUTH AFRICA.

Mr. SCURR: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the request to the Government of India by the Indian community in South Africa, that there should be a representative of that community on the Indian delegation to the forthcoming round-table conference in Cape Town; and, if so, whether he is in a position to state what action the Government of India propose to take in the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: I understand that such a representation was made, and that the Government of India informed the South African Indian Congress that as the Conference was to be between the two Governments, it would not be
possible to give the Indian community in the Union direct representation in the Indian delegation, but that they would be glad to receive any views and suggestions which the community may desire to put forward in regard to the matters at issue, and to communicate them to their representatives at the Conference.

BENGAL CRIMINAL ORDINANCE ACT.

Mr. THURTLE: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if the Government have had any recent communications with the Government of India regarding the possibility of releasing the prisoners who have been detained under the Bengal Criminal Ordinance Act for several years without trial; and if he can state the Government's intentions regarding these prisoners?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The intentions of the Government were somewhat fully stated by the Home Member in the course of a Debate in the Legislative Assembly on 26th January last, and I gave the hon. Member the gist of them in reply to his question of 8th March. So far as my Noble Friend is aware, the views of the Government of India have undergone no change, but he will inquire.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the Noble Lord hold out any hope at all that these men who have been imprisoned so long are going to be released eventually?

Earl WINTERTON: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given. As I said, my Noble Friend will inquire if there is any change in the views of the Government of India.

Mr. THURTLE: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is aware that Mr. S. C. Bose, who is at present detained under the Bengal Criminal Ordinance Act, and who has been duly nominated as a candidate for the Bengal Provincial Council, has not been allowed to issue his election manifesto; and if he will state the ground for this inhibition?

Earl WINTERTON: The fact of this prohibition and the reason for it have been reported in the Indian Press. My Noble Friend has no further information, but will inquire.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Noble Lord aware that the electors of Calcutta have elected Mr. Bose by a large majority?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not know what bearing that has on the question, except to show that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in assuming that any harm has been done by not issuing any election manifesto.

ALL-INDIAN SERVICES (FAMILY PENSIONS).

Brigadier-General CHARTER'S (for Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE): 2.
asked the Under-secretary of State for India whether the family pension scheme for all-Indian services has now been considered by the Government of India; whether any decision has been arrived at; whether details can now be given of this scheme; and if an opportunity will be available for the service organisations concerned to comment on the proposals before they are finally decided upon?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India have examined the scheme, which will now be communicated to the officers concerned for their consideration. I hope to be able to give details of it shortly.

GAOL CONDITIONS, BURMA.

Colonel DAY: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what action is being taken by the Indian Government following the recommendations of Mr. A. Patterson, His Majesty's commissioner of prisons, as a, result of his inquiry into gaol conditions in Burma?

Earl WINTERTON: A Resolution was published by the Government of Burma on the 9th October reviewing the 24 recommendations made in Mr. Paterson's report and explaining inter alia that as regards five of them, which related to prevention of crime, a representative Committee was to be set up. I shall be glad to send the hon. Member a copy of the Resolution if he so desires.

Colonel DAY: Can the Noble Lord say whether the Committee has yet, been set up?

Earl WINTERTON: I should require to have notice of that question. The Resolution referred to stated that the Committee would be set up, and presumably it either has been or is in process of being.

ANDAMAN ISLANDS (CONVICTS).

Colonel DAY: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the total number of convicts incarcerated on the Andaman Islands on the latest convenient date, together with the number for the corresponding period of 1921?

Earl WINTERTON: In 1921 the convict population numbered 11,532, of whom 1,168 were self-supporters or persons who, though still under sentence, are released from close confinement and allowed to earn their living. In December, 1925, the convict population numbered 7,740, of whom 2,105 were self-supporters drawing wages from Government, and 2,272 were agricultural and other self-supporters.

Colonel DAY: Is it the intention of the Government to give up these islands as a penal Colony?

Earl WINTERTON: The policy of abandoning penal settlements is being steadily pursued and has been pursued for years past.

HYDERABAD GAOL.

Colonel DAY: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the outbreak of scurvy at the Hyderabad central gaol; and whether any steps have been taken with a view to an improved diet being afforded, so as to avoid any future epidemics?

Earl WINTERTON: My noble Friend has received no information on the subject.

LEGISLATURE AND PROVINCIAL COUNCILS (WOMEN'S REPRESENTATIVES).

Miss LAWRENCE: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to include women among the nominated members of the new provincial councils and legislative assembly?

Earl WINTERTON: The selection of the persons to fill the nominated seats is under the Statutory rules a matter for the personal discretion of the Governor-General in the case of the Indian Legislature and of the Governor in the case of a provincial Legislative Council. My noble Friend has no information as to their intentions in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA.

OUTBREAKS OF DISEASE.

Viscount SANDON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps the Government of Nigeria are taking to deal with the critical health and mortality situation as indicated in the Annual Report?

Mr. AMERY: The Nigerian Government is taking every possible step to deal with the outbreaks of disease referred to in the Report, which is for the year 1925. I am given to understand that the severe epidemics in the Northern Provinces did not recur in 1926. As regards plague in the Southern Provinces, a special visit was paid to Nigeria by Sir Edward Thornton of the Union of South Africa, and as a result an energetic campaign has been undertaken with the aid of personal borrowed from the Army. Thirty-one medical officers have been appointed to Nigeria since January, 1925, and the medical and sanitary departments have been expanded and will be further enlarged. It is not correct to describe the situation as critical. In a country so large as Nigeria, it is quite impossible to prevent the introduction of epidemic disease from time to time.

RAILWAY RATES.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to make any further reduction in the rates of the Nigerian Railway?

Mr. AMERY: The railway tariff was last revised a year ago, and I have not received any information to the effect that further reductions are contemplated.

Sir F. WISE: May I ask whether the railway is making a profit?

Mr. AMERY: I am not quite sure, but I think it just pays its way.

COAL TRANSPORT (CHARGES).

Mr. CECIL WILSON (for Mr. JOHNSTON): 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the State shipping service of the Government of Nigeria, after allowing for depreciation, overhead charges, etc., can profitably transport
coal from Port Harcourt to Lagos at 6s. 9d. per ton, and that the Elder Dempster Company is charging 198. 6d. per ton for the same service; and whether he will take any steps to assist the Nigerian Government to extend its State Shipping Department so that the railways and industries of Nigeria may be supplied with coal at lower freights?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am aware that the Nigerian Marine Department is able to carry coal at the figure stated. The Government of Nigeria has recently purchased a new Colner and the completion of the Nigerian Eastern Railway will enable coal to be railed direct to the tin mines which are the only consumers of coal apart from the Government railways and there is no need for any further expansion of the Marine Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

SELF-GOVERNMENT.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has under consideration a request for self-government from the Colony of Kenya?

Mr. AMERY: The answer is in the negative.

SENTENCE ON NATIVE.

Mr. SMITH: 19.
also asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information as to what sentence has been passed upon a European called Jasper Abraham, of Kenya, who has been recently in Court again for assaulting a native?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE).

Mr. SMITH: 13.
further asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he proposes to publish a Report of the recent Conference of Governors in East Africa?

Mr. AMERY: A summary of the proceedings of the Conference has been published, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA (AMANI INSTITUTE).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the principal and staff of the Amani Institute have now been appointed?

Mr. AMERY: The appointment of Director of the Amani Institute has been accepted by Mr. W. Nowell, Director of Science and Agriculture, British Guiana. On his arrival in this country from British Guiana, the new Director will be invited to submit recommendations as to the staffing of the Institute.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURE.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of pupils now attending the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture?

Mr. AMERY: According to the most recent information, the number is 50.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how that compares with last year?

Mr. AMERY: I think it shows a substantial increase, and there may have been one or two more since I received this last figure.

Commander B ELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any arrangements have been made to house these students at the college?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, in the Estimates of the current year there is £15,000 from the British Exchequer towards capital expenditure, and since then the Empire Marketing Board, together with the Lancashire cotton industry, contributed another £14,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA (MISSIONARY SOCIETIES).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total amount of money paid annually by the natives of Southern Rhodesia to the missionary societies for the occupation of land; how many natives pay this rent; whether the payments made for the land are in the form of a rent-charge based upon the acreage and quality of the land or in the form of a head-tax
levied according to the number of natives on the land in question; and whether the Native Affairs Department makes any actuarial examination of the expenditure by the missionary societies of the moneys drawn from the native occupiers of land?

Mr. AMERY: The information asked for is not on record in my Department.

Mr. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to obtain it?

Mr. AMERY: Southern Rhodesia is a self-governing Colony, and though the High Commissioner has the right to a certain supervision as regards native affairs, that can only be exercised in a case of legitimate and serious grievance on the part of the natives. If the hon. Member will give me information which will convey a prima facie case of any serious grievance in this matter, I will communicate with the High Commissioner.

Oral Answers to Questions — UDI COAL.

Sir F. WISE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to make any reduction in the price charged for Udi coal other than to Colonial Governments?

Mr. AMERY: I have not received any information on this subject. The price of coal can always be arranged between the consumer and the Colonial Government, and the possibility of reduction must depend upon the cost of output and the demand.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASIATICS, SOUTH AFRICA.

Mr. SCURR: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is in a position to state the personnel of the Union delegation to the forthcoming round-table conference on the Asiatic question in South Africa?

Mr. AMERY: It is understood that an announcement on the subject will be made in South Africa shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LAND ACQUISITION, CAMBRIDGESHIRE.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many Orders for the compulsory acquisition of land
have been made by the Cambridgeshire County Council under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and the Land Settlement Act, 1919, within the County of Cambridge; and whether he will indicate, as far as possible, the owners from whom such land has been compulsorily acquired, together with the names of the parishes in which the land is situated?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): As the reply is rather

Parish.
Acreage
Owners.


Willingham
67
Jesus College, Cambridge.


Fen Ditton and Horningsea
79
Gonville and Calus College, Cambridge


Landbeach and Milton
701
University of Cambridge.


Barrington
225
Mrs. Mary Eleanor Bendyshe.


Barrington
10
Mrs. Mary Eleanor Bendyshe.


Haslingfield
75
Haslingfield Unites Charities.


Waterbeach
524
Mr. Joseph Toller.


Great Shefford and Stapleford
428
Gonville and Calus College.


*Isleham
88
Pembroke College.


*Stapleford, Babraham and Sawston
404
Trustees of late W. S. Heffer.


*Oakington
83
Trustees of March's Charity.


*Guilden Morden
134
Glebe.


*Barton and Grantchester
30
St. Catherine's College.


*Balsham
166
Miss G. M. Archer.


*Willingham
23
Mr. John Marchant.


*Fordham
187
Mrs. Margaret Bland.


*Bassingbourn
230
Mr. W. Wedgborough Clear.


*Willingham and Rampton
63
Mr. W. F. Wells.


†Dry Drayton
3
Messrs. Warrington and Sons.


* In those 10 cases the price or rent was fixed by agreement after confirmation of the Compulsory Order.


†This is a recent case and has not yet been completed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

Mr. EVERARD: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government intend to carry out the recommendations of the Rew Committee for the extension of Unemployment Insurance to agricultural workers?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Government have considered the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Agricultural Unemployment Insurance, and do not see their way to adopt the recommendations of the Majority Report of the Committee.

Mr. EVERARD: Does the answer imply that this matter is definitely settled?

Mr. GUINNESS: Oh, yes; it is quite definite. The Committee recommended a special scheme for agriculture, and we are not able to accept their recommendations.

long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Twenty-six Orders for the compulsory acquisition of land, under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, have been made by the Cambridgeshire County Council since the 1st of January, 1908, but of these seven were abandoned or withdrawn. Particulars of the remaining 19 Orders are appended.

PEDIGREE STOCK (EXPORTS TO DOMINIONS).

Mr. HURD: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, during the present visit to this country of Dominion Ministers, he is arranging for the resumption of the export of pedigree stock to these Dominions either from England as a whole or from districts which can he certified as free from disease?

Mr. GUINNESS: If the present improvement in the position with regard to foot-and-mouth disease is maintained, I propose to approach the Dominion Governments on this subject, but I think it would he premature to do so at the present moment.

Mr. HURD: May I ask whether at the present moment it would not be desirable to put forward the suggestion that there should be two quarantine stations near the ports, one in the North and one in the South, to which animals for export could be sent for a sufficient period to ensure freedom from disease.

Mr. GUINNESS: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there used to be a quarantine station at the Government expense, and, with the approval of the Breed societies, it was abolished. We are now discussing the possibility of re-establishing quarantine facilities at the expense of the people who use them, and when the arrangements are complete we will approach the Dominion Governments.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Captain GUNSTON: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that peat moss imported from Holland is being used as litter for stock and is afterwards spread on the land as manure; if he will inquire whether foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent in Holland; and, if so, take steps to prohibit the import of peat moss into this country?

Mr. GUINNESS: The answer to the first par is in the affirmative. Owing to the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in Holland imports of farm produce such as hay and straw for use as fodder or litter are prohibited. Seeing that peat moss litter is not generally produced on farms, and there is no evidence connecting an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease with its use, I have not felt justified in prohibiting its entry.

Captain GUNSTON: If I can place proof in the right hon. Gentleman's hands that this litter is actually being sold and placed on the land in Gloucestershire, will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is not merely a question of whether it is to be used on a farm here. What we are primarily concerned about is the conditions of production, and whether it originates in an area where it is likely to be infected by foot-and-mouth disease. I am informed it comes from a part of Holland where there is little or no grazing; it is baled on the moors and sent down a canal direct for shipment.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the yearly expenditure on research for foot-and-mouth disease during the past three years; how much it is proposed to spend in the future; and what progress has been made in the discovery of the origin of the disease?

Mr. GUINNESS: The actual expenditure of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease
Research Committee was £6,546 in the year ended 31st March, 1925, and:C9,521 in the year ended March last. In the current year the estimated expenditure is £15,000. So far as can be at present foreseen, the future requirements of the Committee may be expected to be in the neighbourhood of £15,000 a year. A first progress Report, giving full information of the Committee's activities, was published last year, and a second Report is in the Press. Broadly speaking, the Committee are making some progress along several different lines of attack; but the whole problem is still obscure.

ALLOTMENTS.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of allotments taken in the past 12 months for town extension purposes which have not been replaced elsewhere by the local authority taking them; and whether in all these cases where necessary his Department has made representations in favour of such substitution?

Mr. GUINNESS: The particulars required by my hon. Friend are only available in respect of those cases where my consent to the transaction is required under Section 8 of the Allotments Act, 1925. In 19 such cases allotment land has been taken by local authorities for own extension purposes during the last 12 months, the number of plot holders dispossessed being 255. In every instance alternative accommodation was available.

Sir W. de FRECE: Are they entitled to compensation for dispossession, and if so, from whom?

Mr. GUINNESS: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS (FILMS).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, under what conditions permission would be granted to give facilities for a British film in the Royal Parks?

Captain HACKING (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southwark on
Monday, last week. Facilities for cinematography in the Royal Parks are only granted on application, subject to there being no posing of artists or staging of film scenes.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that his right hon. Friend stated in this House a short time ago that all reasonable facilities would be granted to British producers who are anxious to give their films an authentic British atmosphere and background, which is so necessary for national propaganda purposes?

Captain HACKING: As I have already explained in the _House, the parks were not instituted for that purpose. There are still people using the parks who like to have fresh air, without thrills.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (REPAIRS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Depart merit, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, upon what part of the House of Commons it is proposed to commence repair work; from what part of the country the stone is to come; and what is to be the approximate amount to be spent?

Captain HACKING: In the Memorandum which has recently been published, it is suggested that the work of repair should be commenced on the Terrace Front, and that Stancliffe stone from barley Dale in Derbyshire should be used. The estimated cost of the proposed repairs is £1,620,350. I should add, however, that my right hon. Friend has not yet reached any decision regarding the recommendations contained in the Memorandum.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman say for how long a period of time these repairs will be allowed?

Captain HACKING: No, it is not possible to give an estimate yet.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Cannot something be done for the more prominent features of this building, which are at present an eyesore, and the expenditure on which would not be large, so that the general appearance of the building would not be disfigured?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONDENSED SKIMMED MILK (IMPORTATION).

Viscountess ASTOR: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the importation of condensed skimmed milk is prohibited in Cuba, the Bahamas, Chile, Argentine, British Honduras, British East Africa, the Straits Settlements, Italy, and other countries; and why he considers that It is not practicable to take similar steps to prevent the sale in this country of a product which he recognises to be unfit for babies?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend is aware that the importation of condensed skimmed milk is prohibited in some countries. He is advised that though the absence of fat renders this article unfit for feeding babies, it is not unsuitable for other purposes. Containers in which condensed skimmed milk is sold are at present required to bear the label "Unfit for Babies" and from the point of view of the public health, he sees no grounds, so long as this warning is given, for prohibiting its importation into this country.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many Medical Officers of Health have reported that the label is quite inadequate as a means of ensuring that this condensed skimmed milk is not used for babies? If we are to allow it in at all, could not we get more prominent labels, because this is really a danger in many parts of the country?

Sir K. WOOD: I will look into the question of the label, and see what can be done.

Mr. PALING: Is it not the case that they buy this skimmed milk because they do not get wages sufficiently high to buy other milk?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

WASHINGTON CONVENTION (SHIPS SCRAPPED).

Mr. DALTON: 44.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many capital ships and aircraft carriers, respectively, were actually scrapped in pursuance of the terms of the Washington Naval Conven-
tion of 1922; and what was the annual cost of the maintenance of those units in commission before they were scrapped?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): Twenty capital ships of the British Empire were scrapped in pursuance of the terms of the Washington Naval Convention of 1922; one additional ship was transformed into an accommodation vessel in accordance with the terms of the Treaty, and a further ship which might have been retained as an accommodation vessel was in fact scrapped. The Washington Treaty did not require the scrapping of any aircraft carriers of the British Empire.
None of the British ships were in full commission at the time of the Washington negotiations; some were in reserve or special commission, and others were out of commission. The only figures available now regarding the cost of maintenance of these ships indicate that the approximate expenditure for those in reserve was at the rate of about £100,000 a year each, nearly half of that sum being for pay of officers and men; the expenditure on those ships that were paid off would be considerably less.

Mr. DALTON: 47.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many units of the projected Admiralty programme of capital ships and aircraft carriers, respectively, were abandoned in consequence of the Washington Naval Convention of 1922; what would have been the approximate total capital cost of the construction of such units; and what would have been the approximate annual cost of their maintenance in commission?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Four capital ships, included in the 1921–22 building programme, were abandoned in consequence of the Washington Naval Convention; no projected aircraft carriers were so abandoned. The approximate total capital cost of construction of the four capital ships was estimated as £30,000,000, of which we saved all but about £2,000,000.
It is impossible to state with any real accuracy what would have been the annual cost of maintenance of these capital ships in commission had they been completed, but I am of opinion that, as a rough estimate, the annual cost of maintaining, at present prices, each of these capital ships in full commission would have been £500,000.

GREENWICH AGE PENSION.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 48.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether men invalided and in receipt of a Naval Service Pension are eligible for the Greenwich Age Pension of 5d. and 9d. per day on attaining the age of 55 and 65, respectively?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer is Li the affirmative, except so far as men who entered or (after a break in service) reentered the Service after the 3rd October, 1925, are concerned. Such men are not eligible for the increased pension of 9d. a day. I would also refer my hon. and, gallant Friend to the reply given to his question of the 4th May, 1925, in regard to pensions paid to naval ratings by the Ministry of Pensions (OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 535).

GENERAL MESS SYSTEM.

Sir B. FALLE: 49.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many chief and petty officers' messes in the shore establishments at Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham and Rosyth have elected to be messed on the general messing system; and if he can give any reasons why this system of messing is unpopular with chief and petty officers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The reply to the first part of the question is, six. As regards the second part, there is no reason to think that the general mess system, as such, is unpopular with chief petty officers or petty officers in shore establishments, but, generally speaking, it suits their convenience and peculiar circumstances to run their own messing.

INVALIDED RATINGS (TUBERCULOSIS).

Sir B. FALLE: 50.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of naval ratings invalided between the 1st January and 30th September, 1926, and the number whose invaliding disability is considered to be attributable to service; the number of naval ratings invalided with tuberculosis between the 1st January and 30th September, 1926; and the number which are considered to be attributable to service?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The number of naval ratings (including marines) invalided between 1st January, 1926, and 30th September, 1926, was 1,361, and the number of these whose invaliding dis-
ability was considered to be attributable to the service was 59. The number of naval ratings (including marines) invalided with tuberculosis between 1st January, 1926. and 30th September, 1926, was 154, of which seven cases were considered to be attributable to the service.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOURISTS TO BRITAIN (WAR-TIME LEGISLATION).

Sir W. de FRECE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Come-to-Britain tourist movement, the Government proposes to inquire into the effect of the remaining war-time legislation on the amenities of life by restriction of which the influx of visitors is greatly prejudiced?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): In any review of the Shops Acts and the Licensing Act, while the interests of our own people would be the primary consideration, due regard would be paid to the point raised by my hon. Friend. As previously stated, the Government is not in a position to take up these questions at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH NAVAL FORCES).

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is a sufficient naval force at Hankow to ensure the safety of British residents there in case of need?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The disposition of the naval forces in China is made by the Commander-in-Chief, who is in close touch with His Majesty's Minister at Peking and the local Consular officers. It is considered that the force at the disposal of the Commander in Chief is sufficient to ensure the safety of British residents.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW GUINEA.

Mr. W. BAKER: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British representative on the League of Nations to ask the Mandates Committee to cause inquiry to be made into the situation which exists in the ex-German colony of New Guinea?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. BAKER: Having regard to the serious state of unrest both among the white and the native population, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that decision?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir: in no circumstances could I think of taking a different decision from that which was indicated in my first answer. New Guinea is administered by the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, and I cannot conceive how the hon. Member comes to suggest that we should, as it were, bring the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia as defendant before the League of Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (TRADE AGREEMENT).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the names of official trading agents appointed by the Russian Government to enjoy, under Section 5 of the Russian Trade Agreement of 1921, the rights and immunities set forth in Article 4 of that Agreement, and if these agents all exercise such rights and immunities; and whether these are extended to the trading organisations under their control in this country?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Leo Mikailovitch Khinchuk is the only official agent appointed by the Soviet Government under Article 5 of the Trade Agreement. He enjoys the rights and immunities set forth in both Articles 4 and 5 of the Agreement. All the Russian trading organisations in the United Kingdom enjoy the rights described in Article 4, which are the same as those enjoyed by any foreign trading organisation in this country.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that these privileges are dependent upon the Russian Soviet Government refraining from hostile propaganda to British trade in other parts of the world, and in view of the fact that those conditions have been flagrantly broken time and time again, is not about time the right hon. Gentleman considered taking away those privileges?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is an argumentative question.

Oral Answers to Questions — YOUNG PERSONS (HOURS OF LABOUR).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government propose to take to protect young person between 14 and 18 years of age from excessive hours of labour, in accordance with their promise to deal with the matter at the earliest opportunity?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): As far as employment in factories is concerned, the matter is dealt with in the Factories Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman refers to unregulated employment outside factories, the answer is that the Government hope to propose legislation covering such cases when Parliament has come to a decision on the provisions of the Factories, Bill.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that strong opposition is being expressed to the overtime provisions of the new Factory Bill, which make it possible for a period of employment of 12 hours for young persons between 16 and 18?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hope the Noble Lady is as cognisant as I am of the strong opposition that is being expressed to many other Clauses of the Bill.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Home Secretary remember,, no matter what the opposition is, that the progressive side of the Unionist party do not want to see children working 12 hours a day? That is going back.

Mr. PALING: You did your best to get the miners an eight-hours' day.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I quite sympathise with the Noble Lady's view, but I am merely pointing out to her that she is not the only aggressive member of the Unionist party.

Viscountess ASTOR: We are the ones who count.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

PROHIBITED MEETINGS.

Mr. CHARLETON: 63.
asked the Home Secretary whether it was upon his instructions that the public meeting proposed to be held at Stapleford on 7th November
last was prohibited; if so, will he state the reason for this action; and whether there have been any breaches of the peace in the neighbourhood in question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This meeting was prohibited by the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire under the general authority given by me on the 19th ultimo in pursuance of No. 22 of the Emergency Regulations. Although there had been no disturbances in Nottinghamshire, near Stapleford, there had been disturbances lust over the Derbyshire border, and the Chief Constable accordingly thought it necessary to prohibit the meeting.

Mr. CHARLETON: Ts it not rather strange that a meeting should be prohibited in Nottinghamshire at all, seeing the way the miners have acted throughout this dispute?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree that the miners have acted admirably, hut the Chief Constable certified to me that he thought this particular meeting at that particular time might lead to a breach of the peace. It was one of the very few that have been prohibited.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this meeting was held under the auspices of the Communist party, or whether a Communist was billed to speak?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member must give me notice of a detailed question like that.

Mr. LUNN (for Mr. GRUNDY): 62.
asked the Home Secretary if it was on his instructions that, a meeting at Swallownest, Bother Valley Division, was banned on Sunday evening, 14th November; and whether, seeing that a similar meeting under the same auspices and with the same speakers was allowed to proceed at Woodhouse, two miles distant. he will explain what is the principle governing in these eases?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The meeting at Swallownest was prohibited by the Chief Constable of the West Riding under the general authority given by me on the 19th October in pursuance of No. 22 of the Emergency Regulations. The meeting at Woodhouse was in a different police area, and the chief constable concerned was entitled to use his discretion.

Mr. CHARLETON (for Mr. RITSON): 65.
asked the Home Secretary whether it was on his instructions that the Chief Constable of South Shields took exception to a meeting of millers only, proposed to be held in the Pavilion Theatre Hall, South Shields, because he had not been notified of it, so that the Letting of the hall was withdrawn by the proprietor on representations from the chief constable; whether he has issued instructions to all chief constables that they must be notified of all meetings proposed to be held in their respective areas; and whether there have been any breaches of the peace in South Shields?

STATEMENT showing the Number of Persons in receipt of Domiciliary Poor Law Relief (excluding Casuals and Persons in receipt of Medical Relief only), on the Saturday nearest to the Sixteenth Day of each of the under-mentioned Mouths in 78 Poor Law Unions in England and Wales. These Unions account for about 85 per cent. of the Mining Population.


Name of Poor Law Union
Year 1921.
Year 1926.


16th April.
14th May.
18th June.
15th May.
19th June.
17th July.
14th Aug.
18th Sept.
16th Oct.
6th Nov.*


Cumborland:













C ckermouth
…
1,236
2,112
4,121
4,731
8,462
9,017
9,359
9,607
9,697
9,036


Wh[...]tehaven
…
1,751
1,820
1,112
3,870
12,029
12,029
12,162
12,205
12,187
12,103


Derby:













Belper
…
404
428
665
1,09[...]
2,592
3,941
5,878
5,538
3,632
799


Chesterfield
…
1,760
2,689
13,736
16,566
28,756
26,625
27,270
24,034
17,105
12,382


Durham:













Auc[...]land
…
4,629
7,298
15,517
25,994
28,329
29,343
29,537
30,534
30,139
29,017


Chester-le-Street
…
856
858
847
28,854
35,937
40,418
40,951
36,921
35,934
35,794


Durham
…
897
938
942
6,881
27,088
30,580
29,008
30,008
29,839
30,306


Easington
…
1,002
1,311
2,478
20,632
39,562
43,786
46,681
47,809
48,864
49,577


Gateshead
…
1,672
16,150
19,054
38,111
41,291
40,834
41,343
42,147
42,481
42,494


Houghton-le-Spring
…
918
4,917
2,343
14,549
26,781
27,707
28,980
27,840
28,049
28,410


Lanchester
…
1,665
15,603
24,801
10,239
41,961
42,222
42,541
42,342
43,110
41,937


Sedgefield
…
493
1,588
1,643
2,130
15,105
16,532
17,173
16,949
16,788
16,658


South Shields
…
3,919
9,330
22,096
16,840
35,661
35,788
36,411
36,965
37,605
37,217


Sunderland
…
2,007
2,184
2,290
14,967
23,678
24,239
25,287
25,727
26,067
26,467


Teesdale
…
251
272
425
252
950
1,013
1,015
1,028
1,004
974


Gloucester:













Westbury-on-Seven
386
396
399
339
3,794
3,677
388
802
387
370


Lancaster:













Ashton-under Lyne
…
1,853
2,253
3,521
3,028
2,971
2,806
3,023
3,193
2,653
2,751


Ba ton-upon-Irwell
…
447
554
574
3,029
3,984
4,369
4,557
4,550
4,067
4,116


Bofton
…
1,194
1,271
1,381
5,190
10,421
9,910
5,268
5,930
5,601
5,810


Burnley
…
1,432
2,395
9,156
4,593
7,581
7,984
6,291
6,372
5,248
4,909


Leigh
…
536
3,116
3,657
924
5,27[...]
8,045
9,225
10,137
7,617
7,599


Prescot
…
2,066
2,239
2,363
25,644
26,631
25,323
25,017
24,949
24,391
23,958


Warrington
…
5,239
6,884
9,016
6,647
10,499
10,360
9,420
9,505
9,070
8,832


Wigan
…
2,664
30,897
38,769
6,454
45,377
46,132
46,425
44,407
41,278
40,923


Leicester:













Ashby-de-la-Zouch
…
454
475
563
707
9,086
11,481
10,946
8,818
5,403
1,822


Market Bosworth
…
258
250
239
256
1,534
1,783
1,349
582
391
248


Northumberland:













Alnwick
…
155
525
675
216
1,561
1,581
1,632
1,608
1,556
1,604


Castle Ward
…
418
897
1,301
3,384
7,384
7,687
7,865
7,445
7,693
7,332


Hexham
…
344
941
1,226
1,687
3,944
4,084
4,050
4,113
4,026
3,912


Morpeth
…
705
4,051
6,627
1,831
23,368
25,543
29,855
31,254
32,310
31,006


* Latest date for which figures are available

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the two first parts of this question is in the negative. The answer to the third part is in the affirmative.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. LANSBURY: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will publish a list of the boards of guardians representing mining areas, showing the number of persons who received outdoor relief during each month of the mining disputes in 1921 and the present year?

Sir K. WOOD: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the desired information.

Following is the statement promised:

Name of Poor Law Union.
Year 1921.
Year 1926.


15th April.
14th May.
18th June.
15th May.
19th June.
17th July
14th Aug.
18th Sept.
16th Oct.
6th Nov.*


Northumberland—cont.












Newcastle-upon-Tyne
4,461
7,032
10,785
28,021
24,938
23,878
23,835
24,061
24,116
24,008


Tynemouth
1,315
3,002
3,819
12,545
42,078
43,930
46,552
47,259
47,777
40,454


Nottingham:












Basford
1,281
1,372
1,577
26,298
35,464
34,549
34,462
29,090
9,365
2,857


Mansfield
1,806
3,086
9,570
36,436
42,234
42,471
43,747
33,720
10,012
3,449


Nottingham
2,860
3,591
5,062
29,674
24,932
22,948
23,472
20,447
14,113
13,124


Worksop
4,563
7,802
10,885
4,546
15,742
18,243
18,360
17,473
15,176
12,714


Somerset:












Clutton
566
820
619
1,140
2,405
2,848
3,830
4 395
4,574
4,574


Stafford:












Cannock
2,877
4,819
9,916
4,264
11,575
11,843
10,891
8,200
1,153
920


Cheadle
185
192
205
1,907
1,635
385
308
276
230
232


Leek
1,011
2,116
1,783
3,308
3,579
3,046
2,597
2,392
2,097
1,828


Lichfield
410
627
1,118
560
6,257
5,817
5,341
931
683
608


Stoke and Wofstanton
2,344
6,304
7,711
29,094
37,743
33,833
31,028
24,287
16,150
11,622


Walsall
2,454
3,444
3,509
13,358
17,768
15,537
15,053
11,301
8,544
7,509


Warwick:












Atherstone
140
149
169
179
905
837
1,034
609
165
180


Fofeshill
352
624
475
225
4,907
4,301
4,595
3,813
355
273


Nuneaton
275
827
591
2,881
6,140
5,551
6,281
4,754
1,178
706


Tamworth
306
354
395
655
2,145
2,568
2,377
1,385
356
326


Worcester:












Dudley
915
1,000
1,739
5,314
5,326
3,704
3,263
2,336
1,964
1,389


York, West Riding:












Barnsley
1,785
1,937
2,094
9,652
43,607
50,032
50,827
50,570
50,309
49,284


Dewsbury
1,256
2,046
4,886
2,668
5,212
6,223
6,379
6,276
5,506
3,862


Doncaster
2,069
23,712
31,928
3,732
46,982
56,936
58,194
58,956
56,549
53,566


Hemsworth
1,838
15,280
18,186
6,474
28,293
30,070
26,854
26,753
26,549
26,074


Penistone
88
100
134
150
142
134
1,129
1,110
1,042
995


Pontefract
1,128
9,697
16,461
8,385
22,891
31,339
31,089
31,432
31,548
31,238


Rotherham
2,378
2,559
2,795
10,690
44,425
46,539
47,619
45,796
44,101
43,400


Tadcaster
143
233
856
321
2,613
7,245
7,432
7,381
7,156
6,747


Wakefield
4,259
6,106
10,263
5,227
17,287
23,240
24,398
25,056
24,599
21,327


Wortley
326
524
2,262
706
2,773
4,099
3,984
4,165
3,876
2,740


Brecon:












Crickhowel
998
2,339
1,551
6,966
6,753
6,887
6,884
6,880
7,057
6,894


Carmarthen:












Carmarthen
550
603
641
631
1,407
1,524
1,776
1,927
1,965
1,968


Llandilo Fawr
559
981
1,112
770
1,253
1,545
1,851
2,214
2,399
2,484


Llanelly
3,078
4,049
4,835
11,251
11,253
11,954
12,254
12,210
12,328
12,456


Denbigh:












Wrexham
1,199
10,648
10,744
5,543
18,274
16,704
14,250
12,517
9,471
9,748


Flint:












Hawarden
409
702
1,305
1,342
2,046
1,779
1,581
1,259
999
1,011


Holywell
1,084
3,148
3,552
3,929
4,141
3,780
3,498
3,145
2,738
2,301


Glamorgan:












Cardiff
4,677
6,314
6,891
15,090
15,850
15,222
15,608
16,840
15,995
16,540


Bridgend and Cow-bridge.
4,295
16,781
19,096
8,891
36,149
34,946
35,520
35,512
34,810
34,081


Gower
237
250
276
389
762
807
876
897
835
823


Merthyr Tydfil
18,914
45,357
42,087
22,251
63,701
64,749
65,450
65,956
65,953
65,583


Neath
7,078
9,688
20,780
21,469
31,647
31,781
33,077
32,268
31,171
30,892


Pontardawe
1,526
2,571
3,421
1,463
5,776
6,170
6,823
7,001
7.431
7,481


Pontypridd
55,835
14,280
13,410
34,745
94,206
90,032
93,718
93,775
83,083
83,556


Swansea
8,229
16,382
14,518
11,920
11,617
11,771
12,816
12,796
13,063
13,835


Monmouth:












Abergavenny
451
501
909
2,462
2,858
2,969
3,030
3,268
3,478
3,368


Bedwellty
15,602
42,094
32,296
31,119
58,000
59,565
58,779
57,555
57,104
56,528


Newport
1,839
3,513
18,759
6,765
28 586
28,983
28,733
27,205
27,074
26,716†


Pontypool
1,085
3,809
4,364
8,850
12,267
13,271
13,002
12,615
12,398
11,283


Monmouth
509
616
547
2,660
4,228
4,068
3,986
3,058
1,656
868


* Latest date for which figures are available.
† Number on 30th October.

DERBYSHIRE MEETINGS (VINCENT WILLIAMS).

Mr. F. LEE: 64.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has issued instructions that meetings in the North-Eastern Division of Derbyshire should be banned if they are organised by Vincent Williams; and, if so, what is the reason for such prohibition?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have issued no specific instructions in regard to Vincent Williams.

FOREIGN MARKETS (TEMPORARY Loss).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if his representatives abroad have forwarded concrete instances of markets which we have lost either for the time being or, according to anticipation, permanently as a result of the coal dispute; and, if so, whether he will inform the House in detail of the nature of these trading losses?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I do not think that a detailed statement such as my hon. and gallant Friend desires would serve a useful purpose, since it is impossible to, distinguish at this stage between temporary losses of markets due to the postponement of deliveries or orders and losses which may prove permanent. The reports which have reached me confirm the impression given by the trade statistics that shipments of exports other than those primarily dependent upon fuel supplies have been maintained to a remarkable extent.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNFUNDED WAR DEBTS.

Sir F. WISE: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there are any unfunded war debts due to Britain; and, if so, what are they and what are the amounts?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): No Funding Agreement has yet been signed in respect of the War debts due to this country by Russia, the Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom, Portugal and Greece, nor of the post-War Debts of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom and Lithuania. The amounts outstanding on 31st March,
1926, are given on page 96 of the Finance Accounts, 1925–6. In round figures these amounts are:



£


Russia
794,500,000


Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom (War and post-War)
34,000,000


Portugal
23,500,000


Greece
21,000,000


Lithuania
348,000


As my hon. Friend is aware, the Funding Agreement signed in respect of the French War Debt of £647,000,000 (published as Command Paper 2692) has not yet been ratified by the French Legislature.
The payment of the Relief Debt of Austria (£12,000,000) has been postponed till 1943, and is, therefore, in a separate category.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the statement that an offer to reduce the debt of Portugal has been made by England for £6,000,000, and can lie say whether there is any verification of that statement?

Mr. McNEILL: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR COACHES (FIRST-AID OUTFITS).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the numerous accidents to motor coaches and other similar vehicles, he is prepared to take such steps as may be necessary to make the carrying of a first-aid outfit compulsory?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer, of which I am sending him a copy, given by the Minister on the 16th November, to a similar question addressed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry).

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (TRAINING CENTRES).

Major GLYN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps,
if any, are to be taken, in co-operation with the Ministry of Labour, to increase the number of training centres where youths and men from industrial areas can acquire some knowledge of agricultural conditions obtaining in the Dominions overseas by using the implements, harness, etc., in common use in Canada and Australia; and, up to date, how many persons so trained in existing centres have migrated overseas?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The question of providing increased facilities for the training of young men, with a view to employment on the land overseas, has been considered by the Imperial Conference, and my hon. and gallant Friend will have seen in the Press the report of the Sub-Committee which has been adopted by the Imperial Conference. General approval of the existing centres is expressed, and the hope that these centres should be continued and, if possible, extended. These matters will in due course be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government. As regards the last part of the question, 250 young men have proceeded overseas from the Ministry of Labour's training centres after a course of training in farm work—98 to Canada and 152 to Australia.

Viscountess ASTOR: Has the Under-Secretary considered setting up these training colleges for women who are particularly needed in Australia?

Mr. SPEAKER: That point should be put as a separate question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ECONOMIES).

Mr. HARRIS: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what economies he has effected in the administration of his Department during this year?

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what economies he has effected in the administration of his Department during this year?

Mr. BRIANT: 30 and 35.
(1) asked the Minister of Agriculture what economies he has effected in the administration of his Department during this year;
(2) asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what economies have been effected do the administration of the Department during this year?

Mr. McNEILL: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave on the 18th November in reply to similar questions asked in regard to other Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can inform the House as to the amount of floor space which has been let for the British Industries Fair to take place next year; and how this compares with the space let at the same date for the previous year's fair?

Mr. SAMUEL: The whole of the space available for the London Section of the British Industries Fair in 1927 has now been let, and no further applications can be entertained. The total amount let is about 25,000 square feet more than was occupied in the 1926 Fair. In the Birmingham Section, up to the present, the amount let is 23,000 square feet more than the final area let for the 1926 Fair. I understand that at Birmingham there is still a small amount of space available for intending exhibitors.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask whether there is any larger buildings still to be taken for 1928?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is a very difficult question, and I must ask for notice.

Mr. LOOKFR: Can the hon. Gentleman extend the facilities to the public to inspect the British Industries Fair next year?

Mr. SAMUEL: The fair is primarily intended for trade buyers and not for the general public, except at such specific hours as are arranged by the exhibitors.

Oral Answers to Questions — CASUAL WARDS.

Mr. W. BAKER: 40.
asked the Minister of Health the number of casual wards the
closing of which he has sanctioned during the past six months; and whether, in view of the increase of casual vagrants and the overcrowding of casual wards, he will see that no further closing of such wards will be sanctioned?

Sir K. WOOD: Sanction to the closing of two casual wards has been given during the last six months. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to give the general undertaking asked by the hon. Member, but sanction to the closing of wards will not be given without full consideration of the circumstances of the particular case, including the possible effect of such closing on all neighbouring wards.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUXILIARY POSTMEN (WAGES).

Mr. W. BAKER: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the trial of an auxiliary postman, 59 years of age, which took place at the Old Bailey on the 10th November, when it was stated that this employé was in receipt of wages amounting to £1 15s. 7d. and that his total income from other sources did not exceed 4s. per week; whether he is aware that the Recorder asked the counsel for the Post Office whether anything could be done with regard to these auxiliary postmen, seeing that case after case had to be tried as each session occurred; that whilst the Recorder held that the Post Office could not afford to give more than a proper salary he agreed that the man's income was not sufficient to enable him to maintain his family; and whether he will carefully examine the whole position with regard to auxiliary postmen to see whether he can ensure that the work and the wages offered to individual employés are sufficient to guarantee a reasonable standard for the men and their families?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): I am aware of the facts of the case referred to by the hon. Member. The man concerned was employed by the Post Office for 32 hours a week in the early morning and evening, and was paid at the standard hourly rate, his weekly remuneration being 37s. When first appointed as auxiliary postman in 1921, he stated that he had outside employ-
ment in addition. For many years past the Post Office has aimed at employing full-time labour and reducing part-time labour to a minimum; but owing to the incidence of the work there is no alternative but to employ a certain amount of part-time force on postmen's duties. The Post Office pay of auxiliary postmen is not intended to constitute the sole means of livelihood, and it is the aim to restrict employment as auxiliary postmen to ex-service pensioners or persons who have some other sources of income; but it is difficult at the present time to enforce this condition stringently, particularly in the case of a man who loses his outside employment after he has been engaged by the Post Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — HALL OF REMEMBRANCE, WASHINGTON (BRITISH TRIBUTE).

Viscountess ASTOR (for Sir COOPER RAWSON): 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the Marble Hall of Remembrance in Washington, United States of America, to the American unknown soldier the tribute from Great Britain compares unfavourably with those of other nations; and whether steps will be taken to make a more suitable contribution?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend is no doubt unaware that the tribute from Great Britain is the Victoria Cross—our highest decoration for valour, never before bestowed upon the subject of a foreign State. His Majesty, in a telegram to the President of the United States expressing his wish to confer the decoration, said:
I trust that you and the American people will accept the gift, in order that the British Empire may thus most fitly pay its tribute to a tomb which symbofises every deed of conspicuous valour performed by men of your great fighting forces, whether by sea or land, upon the Western front.
To such a gift, so conveyed, nothing should or could be added.

Oral Answers to Questions — LANDSLIDE, CWM.

Mr. T. HENDERSON (for Mr. EVAN DAVIES): 58.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his
attention has been called to the dangerous state of Duffryn School, Cwm, in consequence of the landslide which has recently taken place; whether he is aware that 1,500 children attended this School; and, in view of the reports of the engineer called in by the Ebbw Vale Urban District Council, what steps are contemplated by his Department to provide facilities for continuing the education of these children?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I am aware of the damage caused to the premises of this School by the landslide, resulting in the displacement of some 900 children, not 1,500, as stated by the hon. Member. As regards the last part of the question, the matter is, in the first instance, one for the local authority, and I understand that they are considering, in consultation with His Majesty's Inspector, the provision of temporary emergency accommodation.

Mr. T. HENDERSON (for Mr. EVAN DAVIES): 66.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the landslide at Cwm, Ebbw Vale; whether he has read the report of the engineer called in by the Ebbw Vale Urban District Council, in which he clearly indicates the probability of a disaster if immediate steps are not taken to prevent it; and will he state whether he is prepared to send down an expert from his Department to render every possible assistance to check any further move in the mountain?

Sir K. WOOD: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to this matter, and an engineering inspector visited the district last week. Some accounts of the position appear to be exaggerated. The trouble seems to be due, not to any general movement of the mountain, but to a colliery spoil bank. The colliery company have a gang of men at work on temporary remedial measures, and there appears to be no danger to life. The local authority and the colliery company are discussing the best method of dealing with the trouble.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Short to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Legitimacy Bill [Lords]); Sir Edmund Turton to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill [Lords]), and Mr. William Nicholson (in respect of the University of London Bill [Lords]).

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill,

Police Pensions Bill, without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill [Lords]): Captain Bourne, Captain Briscoe, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Christie, Colonel Sir George Courthope, Mr. Cove, Mr. Dean, Sir Robert Hamilton, Captain Robert Henderson, Mr. Hurd, Mr. MacLaren, Major Alan McLean, Mr. Hugh Morrison, Mr. Rhys, Mr. Riley, Major Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Shepperson, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Cecil Wilson, and Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the University of London Bill [Lords]): Duchess of Atholl, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Dalton, Mr. Ernest Evans, Captain Fairfax, Sir Alfred Hopkinson, Dr. Little, Sir John Marriott, Lord Eustace Percy, Mr. Lees-Smith, Mr. Somerville, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Webb, Mr. Withers, and Mr. Hilton Young.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANDISE MARKS (IMPORTED GOODS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to grant provisional exemption from Order in Council.)

(1) If where an Order in Council has been made under this Act with respect to any goods it is shown to the satisfaction of the appropriate Department by persons appearing to the Department to have a substantial interest in the matter that the application of the provisions of the Order, or of some of those provisions, to any particular class or description of those goods has caused, or is likely to cause, injury or hardship to the said persons, or any of them, the Department may direct that the Order, or any particular provisions of the Order, shall cease to apply to goods of that class or description or shall apply to such goods subject only to such modifications and conditions as the Department think fit, and the Order shall, while the direction is in force, have effect subject thereto.

(2) Immediately after a direction has been. given under this Section the appropriate Department shall cause notice thereof to be published in the London, Edinburgh, and Belfast "Gazettes," and in such other manner as the Department may deem suitable, and shall refer to a committee for consideration the question whether the Order with respect to which the direction has been given should be amended either in accordance with the terms of the direction or otherwise with respect to the goods in question.

(3) A direction under this Section may at any time be withdrawn by the appropriate Department, and shall not in any case continue in force after the date on which any amending Order in Council made on the Report of the committee to which the matter in question has been referred under the last preceding Sub-section comes into operation or after the expiration of 12 months from the date on which the direction was given, whichever date is the earlier.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. WEBB: I cannot say that I rise to oppose this Clause exactly, because of the absence of any explanation on behalf of the Government, but what is probably remarkable ire the annals of this House is the extraordinary way in which
this Bill has expanded, and is still expanding. As it was passed by the House on Second Heading, it comprised only about 300 lines. Now, after having gone through the Committee stage, it extends to over 500 lines, and in this new Clause it is proposed to make a further permanent addition of 25 lines.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I apologise most sincerely for not being in my place when this Clause was called. I was in my room, but was not aware of the rapid progress that had been made with Questions. This proposed new Clause has been put down in order to give effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee. Hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee will recollect that it was contended, first, that no discretion should be allowed to the Department to revoke an Order without reference to a Committee and without the procedure which is laid down in the Bill for dealing with a proposed Order. On the other hand, it was also contended that there should not be the power to add new articles to an Order without the same procedure of referring the matter to a Committee. Both of those contentions were very reasonable, but, at the same time, if it should happen, after an Order had been made and had come into force, that some small matter of administration arose in respect of which, by common consent, the Order ought to be altered or modified, then, obviously, it would be for the general convenience that that modification or alteration should take effect at once, without waiting for the full procedure before the Committee. This proposed new Clause, read with the further Amendment which stands in my name to a later Clause, gives effect exactly to the provisions I have indicated. If this Clause be carried, and if the further Amendment be made in the later Clause, the procedure will be that no revocation can be made in an Order without reference to a Committee—

Mr. BASIL PETO: Is the Amendment to which my right hon. Friend refers the Amendment to Clause 6?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes. The procedure will be that no modification of an Order can be made without reference to a committee, and, therefore, it will be impossible for me or any of
my successors to override the general purpose of the Bill. Equally, no addition can he made to an Order by adding new items which were not considered by the Committee when the Committee heard the case for the Order being made; but, at the same time, there will be power for the Department, in a matter of variation which is commonly agreed to be required, to give a direction, and that direction will come into force. Even so, however, the direction of the Department will have to be referred to the Standing Committee, and the Committee will have either to approve of that variation or amend it. If the Committee approve the variation, it will find its place in the Order. In order to ensure that these variations shall go regularly to the Committee and find their place in an Order, the Clause provides that, unless an Order be made within 12 months of the direction being given, the variation itself will lapse. I think that this carries out the undertaking I gave to both sides in Committee, and that it will meet the general convenience.

Mr. HARRIS: We are thankful for small mercies, and this new Clause, moved at the eleventh hour, is some concession to the traders who feel that their interests are likely to be seriously affected by this Bill. The fact, however, that these various Amendments, right. through the Committee stage and now again on Report, have had to be moved by the President of the Board of Trade, shows how ill thought-out, how ill-conceived this Bill has been. More and more public opinion in industry is being organised to realise that the Bill is going seriously to affect the entrepot trade and the whole business organisation of this country. Of course, to have this further chance of revision of the tyranny of these wonderful Committees that are to be set up under the Bill is some satisfaction. On the other hand, hon. Members opposite will appreciate that it is very unsatisfactory that the powers required under a Bill of this kind should be concentrated in the President of the Board of Trade. Government Departments are getting far too powerful, and are becoming powerful largely because of these ill-considered Bills that are pushed through in order to pander to the pre-
judices of a section of the community, and to buy off the disappointed hopes of the Protectionists who have been cheated of their general tariff. This is another example of the President of the Board of Trade, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, getting through this House some form of Protection.
When you go in for Bills of this kind, when you try to get Protection through elaborate machinery of this character, it is inevitable that you have to invent safeguards of this kind. The very fact that a safeguard of this kind is necessary is proof that the Bill is a bad Bill. The very fact that traders have to go through the elaborate process of first going before a Committee, and then, after obtaining a decision from that Committee, having to appeal to the appropriate Department, on the chance of the appropriate Department being more sympathetic than the Committee, proves that it is had machinery and likely, not to help, but to hinder industry and trade. I should like, Mr. Speaker, to ask for your ruling in reference to the appearance in this proposed new Clause of the words "appropriate Department." I propose to move, when we come to the Amendments to the Bill itself, the substitution of the words "Board of Trade" for "appropriate Department," and I should like to ask your ruling as to whether, if we allow these words to pass here, it will in any way prejudice my moving an Amendment later on to substitute the words "Board of Trade"?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, it will not prejudice the opportunity of the hon. Member, and I think it would he better to take it where be has it on the Paper, namely, in Clause 2, because clearly, if this Clause be inserted, it will come into the final print of the Bill later on. Then the necessary amendment might be made in another place if the hon. Member carries his point.

Mr. PETO: I rise as a Member of the Standing Committee who took particular exception to the wording of Clause 5 of the Bill as it was before the Committee, which seemed to me then to give an improper amount of power to the Department to override the decision of the Committee which was to be set up. I only rise to say
I consider that this proposed New Clause, coupled with the proposed Amendment to Sub-section (2) of Clause 6, not only carries out the undertaking which the President of the Board of Trade gave in Committee, but is a great improvement in the Bill, and one which I think will make for its smooth working.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain why a very long Clause like this, which is very difficult to understand, has been deberred until the very last minute I speak as one who was not privileged to take part in the deliberations of the Committee, but as one who realises that this Bill, owing to circumstances outside the control of the House, had only a very brief and half-hearted Second Reading Debate. If my memory serves me aright, I think the Committee stage was completed somewhere about the end of July, and yet it has only been during the week-end immediately before the commencement of the Report stage that this very long and involved Clause has appeared in type. It does not seem to me that the President of the Board of Trade is treating the House fairly in regard to this Bill, and that as the impression that some of us have had for a long time. The Bill is going to affect vitally business interests all over the country. As far as one can see, under its provisions no importer, trader or shopkeeper will feel settled until he has added to his staff a lawyer or Parliamentary expert, in order to understand what it is all about. Therefore, seeing the large number of individual traders and shopkeepers and of business organisations that are vitally affected, why was not this Clause produced by the President of the Board of Trade in time to enable those concerned to consider its implications and their attitude towards it It seems to me that the President of the Board of Trade has not treated the House or, what are, perhaps, more important than the Members of the House, the trading interests which will be affected by a Bill of this kind, fairly in putting this Clause down at the last minute.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This Clause was put down at the common
request of every quarter of the Committee. It is necessarily long, but it contains nothing that is at all new; it merely gives effect to what was discussed and agreed to in the Committee, and, therefore, I do not think that anyone can possibly take exception to it.

Mr. BARNES: While the right hon. Gentleman's statement is quite correct, I think he will remember that in Committee repeated representation were made to him that the discussion should be adjourned, for the purpose of ensuring that any new Clause dealing with this particular point should receive consideration in Committee. We are now, of course, in the difficulty that a new Clause is being submitted, and, if I understand your ruling correctly, Mr. Speaker, we are not entitled at this stage to move Amendments to this proposed new Clause dealing with the definition of "appropriate department."

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that that particular Amendment would come a little later, where it stands on the Paper, in Clause 2. This Clause would then have to be amended accordingly.

Miss LAWRENCE: Will the Minister give us an explanation as to how this Clause and Clause 6 (2) will read? I cannot quite reconcile in my mind the provisions of this Clause with those of Clause 6 (2). Are we to expect a further Amendment, or, if not, will the Minister explain how the two Clauses will be read together?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: An Amendment has been on the Paper for some days to leave out, in Sub-section (2) of Clause 6, from the word "department" to the end of the Subsection, with the exception of the words "be revoked or varied by a subsequent order made in." The Clause will then read:
An Order in Council made under the foregoing provisions of this Act may, on a representation to His Majesty by the appropriate Department, he revoked or varied by a subsequent Order made in like manner, and the foregoing provisions of this Act with respect to the making of Orders in Council shall, subject to the necessary modifications, have effect accordingly.

Mr. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Seeing that this Bill came from the Com-
mittee at the end of July, why is it not until the middle of November that this Clause, which is of such great importance, appears on the Paper?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think really I have any need to apologise. It would be strictly within Parliamentary order to put a new Clause on the Paper at one day's notice; indeed, I was called upon to deal with hundreds of Amendments put down at one day's notice. This Clause, which is an agreed Clause, has been already some days on the Paper. It was on the paper even before we had a Consolidated Paper for the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Imported goods bearing name or trade mark of British manufacturer or trader, not to be sold unless accompanied by indication, of origin.)

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after the word "sell," to insert the word "or."
This Clause has excited perhaps much less opposition than the following Clauses in the Bill, and I think it is partly due to the impression that this is merely a Clause to prevent fraud in the use of British names and British trade marks. Adequate protection is already provided under Section 16 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, to protect, say, a Sheffield manufacturer from foreign goods pretending to be Sheffield made or using British names. It has given every satisfaction, and there have been effective prosecutions. What this Clause really aims at has come out in the course of the discussions in Committee it aims at something very much wider. It aims really at extensive infringement in the ordinary cause of trade and business. I gather that what is behind the Minister's mind is that some business man, wanting to advertise his goods, buys an article of foreign make. The example given, I think, by the President himself was the well-known Bass's beer, which goes in for a very elaborate system of advertising. It advertises by means of glasses, ash trays and various other articles which may be manufactured in England, or in order to push their goods abroad, may be manufactured in some foreign country.
What I understand is in the Minister's mind is that the word "Bass" might appear on a foreign tumbler or ash-tray or some other article. That, he maintains, would be misleading the public. That is carrying the protection of British names rather far. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has heard of an institution called the Mustard Club. Possibly he is a member of it. It is organised in order to push a certain kind of mustard, the manufacturer of which, for purposes of advertisement, in the past gave away mustard pots which bore him name. That pot, I am informed, is often made abroad. No doubt the President of the Board of Trade would think that a great crime, but the trader, in order to push his wares, not only sends these articles all over this country, but to America, to the Continent and to our Dominions. Under this Clause it would be necessary, I assume, to stamp on the pot in large letters, "Manufactured in Germany," or whatever the country was. It is difficult enough at present to carry on trade without elaborate Regulations of this kind. There is no demand for this Regulation. There has been no public outcry. On the contrary, the more Chambers of Commerce realise what is in the Bill, the more opposition there is against it. When it is applied to articles that are given away by way of advertisement it is rather preposterous to interfere with their advertising character by requiring them to have stamped on them the country of origin, because it is not seriously suggested that- there is any attempt to defraud or mislead the public. If there were, that would come under the existing powers in the Act of 1887. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman wants smooth working for the Bill; if he does not want his life made burdensome to him by traders, these most unreasonable words should be removed and the Clause should be limited to articles offered for sale. If the Amendment be carried, I shall then ask the House to leave out the words "or distribute by way of advertisement."

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): It is true that very large numbers of these articles are distributed
by way of advertisement, and a distinct hardship is inflicted on British trade. After an exhaustive examination of the subject in Committee, we decided that it would be well to retain the Clause as it stands. I received an advertisement myself the other day from the Ancient Order of Froth Blowers consisting of a pair of links. There is no earthly reason why there should not be a mark on cuff links if they are made abroad. We believe the Clause will meet a great want.

Mr. WEBB: The Parliamentary Secretary cannot deal with the argument in favour of the Amendment in that summary way. There -is a good deal more in the words now proposed to be enacted than the hon. Member seems to suppose. The whole purpose of this Bill is not in any way to protect British industry against the foreigner, or to prevent the importation of foreign-made goods. Over and over again, all such intention has been disclaimed on behalf of the Government. The intention of the Bill is to prevent in any way, open or concealed, misrepresentation, so that the purchaser shall be able to tell whether he is actually purchasing foreign-made goods, Empire goods, or British homemade goods. The question is how far in attempting to protect and enlighten the innocent purchaser, who cannot be expected to know the processes of manufacture, we are interfering with business operations to the detriment of the British trader.
The Parliamentary Secretary seems to think that it is all on one side; that the words proposed to be left out will afford some protection to British industry. If he will consider the ease, I think he will see that the things which are distributed by way of advertisement do not really come within the ostensible intention of the Bill. Nobody would suggest that when a person receives one of these articles which are distributed in order to advertise a product, generally a, British product, he has any other impression than that the product which it is proposed to sell to him is the British product which is advertised on the article which he receives as a gift. Now, it is suggested in this Clause which the Government propose to enact that, if a British manufacturer wants to sell any commodity and he puts his name, or has his name put, on a particular article
which he gives away by way of advertisement, although it is a British commodity which he proposes to sell, yet if he uses for the purpose of advertising that British product any article which is made in another country, he is to be condemned to mark the article "Made in Czechoslovakia," or something like that. That, really, would be a misrepresentation. For instance, if the consumer received an article by way of advertisement relating to the sale of, say, Bass's ale, and that article bears the words "Made in Czechoslovakia," the suggestion is that Bass's ale is made in that country.
Apparently, hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member who has defended the Clause, think that it is wrong for a British manufacturer to purchase or use any of these foreign-made commodities for advertisement purposes, and it is desired to prevent him doing so. I do not think I am misrepresenting the Parliamentary Secretary in saying that he pointed out that when a British manufacturer actually used these foreign commodities for the purpose of advertising any article, he did some sort of injustice or wrong to British industry. Let us consider what that means. Take the case of a British manufacturer who has built up a large business which employs British labour, and in order to advertise his product, to gain a larger sale and employ more British labour, he makes use of some glass receptacle made in Czechoslovakia, or some other foreign-made article, on which he stamps his own name, or the name of his product. That is an indication that he wants the consumer to buy this particular product, which may be Bass's ale or some other article. If we pass the Bill without the Amendment proposed, that manufacturer will be committing an offence against the Act and his enterprise will be stopped. He will not be allowed to get that particular glass from Czechoslovakia, unless he has stamped upon it the words "Made in Czechoslovakia." If he does that, he is conveying a false impression, that "Made in Czechoslovakia" refers not to the glass but to the goods to which the glass relates. Some other maker of beer will be allowed to use glass made abroad, and stamp it with, say, "Pilsener Beer" or "Buy Pilsener Beer, the best beer," using the British language in order to deceive
the consumer, if you like. There will be no offence if he uses such glass by way of advertisement in order to send it broadcast to every consumer in this country. He will be subject to no disability because he will not be using the
name or trade-mark of any manufacturer, dealer, or trader in the United Kingdom.
I suppose there will not be, anyone of the name of Pilsener in the United Kingdom. Therefore, a foreign manufacturer will be able to use this method of advertisement freely, whereas a British manufacturer will not be able to use this method of advertisement, which practice has grown up, which is his own practice and which he has found to be convenient. Japanese vases, or glass made in Czechoslovakia, or some article made from paper, come to us in the course of the year in considerable number for the purpose of advertising British goods, made by British firms with British labour. We shall hamper that particular trade by this Clause, and, incidentally, we may enable foreign competitors, provided they do not happen to bear a name which is identical with the name of anybody in this country, to do the very thing which we shall have prevented Bass's or a cocoa manufacturer or the maker of numerous other articles from doing by way of advertisement. We shall hamper the proceedings of these British firms and possibly prevent them from doing it at all. What is the necessity of putting in these words: "by way of advertisement"? The ostensible intention was to make quite clear to the purchaser of an article that he was getting a British article, a foreign article, or an Empire-made article. The articles which are distributed by way of advertisement are not usually the articles which the consumer is asked to purchase. I do not know whether Messrs. Bass and Company use glass by way of advertisement in the way I have suggested. I am only putting it forward as an illustration, and in support of my contention that they would not be doing anything wrong either under the Merchandise Marks Act or any other Act, and they would not be doing anything for which they need blush, although under this Clause they might be doing something for which the Government would penalise them.
It is an unnecessary restriction, which is not justified by the intention of the Bill. Such a restriction will not do anything, as fax as I can make out, to promote the sale of the British articles which are advertised. It will actually place British manufacturers under a disadvantage, a disability compared with the Continental manufacturer or the American manufacturer, who may be dealing in the same article in which the British manufacturer deals, because they will be allowed to use this particular method of advertisement, by using some name which does not happen to be the name of anyone in this country. They will be allowed to use this particular advertisement media here without having to put on the article which advertises their goods the disfiguring mark, "Made in Czechoslovakia," or some other mark which would be misleading, because the article actually advertised would not have been made in Czechoslovakia.
4.0 p.m.
In Committee we were a very small minority struggling against overwhelming forces, and we did not get any adequate satisfaction. It is felt, also, by Members who did not have the opportunity of serving on the Committee that this is a matter of great importance. Many of us have received representations from business organisations up and down the country strongly objecting to this provision and unable to understand what it is for, unless indeed it be a naked attempt at Protection to give some sort of advantage to British as against foreign manufactures. As origiNally devised, this would have been equally penal in the case of coverings reels, labels, and so on, attached to articles, but I am glad to say that in consequence of the discussion in Committee the Sub-section on that point was limited so that it should nit apply to coverings, labels, reels, and things like that, provided that the British firm's name upon them had been put their at their own request and by their own consent. I submit that if these odds and ends, ordered abroad, made abroad, and imported with the express purpose of advertising British goods are ordered by the British manufacturer and have his name put upon them by his order and his direction, then that which has been
done for labels, reels, and coverings ought also to be provided with regard to articles given away by way of advertisement.

Mr. HARNEY: I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade to say how he is going to deal with a case of this sort. As I understand it, the wrongful act is in using in this country an imported article for the purpose of advertisement. Let us take the illustration of a bottle of Bass mentioned by the last speaker. Supposing the Bass in this country is put into bottles made in Austria and that Bass's labels are put upon the bottles. The offending article there is the bottle. What is the punishment? There is nothing in the Clause, and therefore I suppose it is forfeiture. If you forfeit the bottle, what are you going to do with the beer? That really is the position. Here is a bottle of beer—not actually, but imaginary, I am sorry to say—the beer is made in Burton, the bottle, let us assume, was made in Czechoslovakia,, and the label on it is "Bass's Beer." That creates the offence. What is to be done? You are empowered only to deal with the bottle. You have no power to touch the unoffending beer. You forfeit the bottle. What are you going to do wits the beer? I put that case to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MORRISON: I may be lacking in a sense of humour, but it does seem to me almost incredible, from the point of view of a person outside, that this House should propose in the next two or three days to discuss this Bill. There are still one or two people outside who understand that this Government was returned in order to try and make things better. With the number of unemployed up by nearly 500,000, with the number of people on the Guardians increased by about 50 per cent., and with the state of the country continually getting worse, that the Government at the present time can find nothing better to introduce than legislation of this character appears to me almost incredible. It is this sort of thing, and particularly speeches such as the Parliamentary Secretary delivered to us a few minutes ago—and I suppose we shall have similar ones—that is making this Government the laughing stock of the people of the country.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: On a point of Order. What has this to do with the Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: I imagined that the hon. Member's remarks were something in the nature of a preamble, and that he was about to come to the Amendment.

Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Member might have let me get my preamble in. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply to the Mover of the Amendment, said that the object of this Bill was to protect British manufacturers. I understood that the object was to protect the public against fraud and misrepresentation. The President of the Board of Trade has gone out of his way repeatedly to point out that the only object of the Bill was to protect the public or the consumer against fraud or misrepresentation. The hon. Gentleman has introduced another object this afternoon, namely, to protect the British manufacturer. The Government profess to be very anxious to protect the public against misdescription. Some of us wish that they were equally anxious to protect the public against profiteering. It seems to me that the suggestion in a proposal such as we are discussing is that you can fleece the public as much as you like, provided you tell them where the goods come from.
Let me give a very simple illustration. Take a large manufacturer of jam in this country who, in order to advertise his jam say at Christmas, distributes to his customers ornamental match-boxes which he gets abroad, either because the price suits him—and he is perfectly entitled to take that into consideration—or because he cannot get the particular kind of fancy match-box that he wants in this country. He buys a supply of these match-boxes in order to circulate them purely for advertising purposes. He does not sell them, but gives them away. Under this Clause, it will be necessary for him to have put upon the boxes the name of the country in which they had been made. The trouble is that he is using them for advertising his jam, and, when he puts on the match-box, "Buy so-and-so's jam," he also has to put on the bottom, "Made in Czechoslovakia." That is going to confuse the public, and I suggest that this sort of thing is not legislation, but mischievous interference.
Let me give a further example. I hold in my hand a little mirror, a quite common article, and it says, "Colman's Azure Blue." When this Bill becomes law, it will be impossible for this firm to give that little mirror away to their customers. They will have to have printed on it, "Made in Czechoslovakia" or whatever country it may be, or "foreign made," and it will read, "Colman's Azure Blue," "made in Czechoslovakia." What are the public going to think? I suggest, first of all, that there is no necessity for people doing this; and, secondly, I am perfectly sure, party politics apart, that everyone will agree that the sending out of an advertisement like that deceives nobody. If on an article like this advertising a British manufacture you have to put, "Made in Czechoslovakia" the public will be confused and will not understand what is the position at all.
Some of our British manufacturers have been trying their very best to maintain the trade of the country, and it seems to me that lately it has been the policy by using articles like this purely for advertising purposes to throw a foreign sprat in order to catch a British mackerel. The Government now say: "If you insist on fishing for trade by giving the public fancy little articles like this, we are going to do something which will raise the price of the articles you propose to give away, which will confuse the public, and which will discredit the article you propose to advertise." If hon. Members on the other side will get up and tell me bow that is going to improve our British trade and commerce, I shall be very pleased. An hon. Member on the other side, who very seldom takes part in debate, on the Second Reading used these significant words, and I am perfectly sure that the President of the Board of Trade will pay more attention to him than to myself:
If the Government choose to make themselves ridiculous, we cannot help it.
That seems to me to be the position particularly in regard to this provision. I could multiply the illustration which I have given by bringing 200 articles of the same sort. If somebody's jam is advertised on an article like this, nobody believes that the makers of the jam have manufactured this mirror. Nobody will get up and say that the
inference from this advertisement is that Colman's manufactured this little mirror. Everybody knows that they did not. That is not their business. If a jam manufacturer gives away a matchbox, nobody believes that he has manufactured the match-box. He has merely given it away as an advertisement. The President of the Board of Trade has repeatedly said that this is a Bill to protect the consumer against misrepresentation. I invite him to get up and say where is the misrepresentation in giving away a mirror like this as an advertisement. Who is being deceived? Is the public deceived by the people who make Colman's blue? Is the public deceived into believing that the match-boxes are made by the jam manufacturer? If the President of the Board of Trade says that the object is to protect the public against fraud and misrepresentation, I say that this provision is only mischievous interference with business, is not called for, and is not going to do anything for British trade, but is going to hamper it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the balance of convenience plainly lies in favour of retaining these words in the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) wishes to know whether he will find himself in jeopardy if he drinks Bass out of a bottle which has the label of the beer-maker but which itself is of foreign manufacture. I can assure him that not only will he be able to consume that bear with impunity but the vendor or maker of the beer will not be imperilled either. What does this Clause do? It says that if you send out with English goods some article by way of advertisement and stamp it elaborately with the name of a British firm, then if that article be not British you should say so. I do not think that is at all unreasonable. I thing a great many people receiving match-boxes with a British firm's name upon them would be of the impression, so far as they had an impression at all, that what they had got hold of was a British article.
If, instead of distributing free by way of advertisement, a firm sold these small articles with their names upon them then plainly under the words of the Clause they would have to mark the article as
being of foreign manufacture, and it is only because these articles are distributed free instead of being sold that it is agreed that they should he exempt from the provisions of the Bill. I think the balance of convenience is plainly on the side of saying that they shall be marked. Hon. Members opposite have talked as if this proposal was an invention of the Board of Trade, but if any hon. Member opposite had been at the Board of Trade at any time he would have found that there are very grave complaints among manufacturers of all kinds of commodities at this wholesale distribution of goods, not manufactured in this country, which go out bearing upon them the name of some British firm. If we say that the goods are not to be sold as British, if they are not British, then logically their distribution by way of advertisement follows that decision, and accordingly the balance is entirely in favour of retaining the words.

Mr. BARNES: The last words of the President of the Board of Trade raise the whole difficulty in this Amendment. He says that the Board of Trade have had repeated representations made to them against these articles being distributed by way of advertisement. That brings us to the question as to what is the purpose of this Bill. On the Second Reading, and also in Committee, whenever the right hon. Gentleman was faced with any difficulty his defence was that the purpose of the Measure was to disclose to the consumer the origin of the particular article they were purchasing. When we destroyed that argument, as we have this afternoon, then the President changes his ground and rests his case on the fact that representations have been made to the Board of Trade by the manufacturing interests. As a matter of fact, this Measure has been so altered in its construction since it was first introduced and its effects on trade are such that it is no longer a Bill to protect the consumer; it is openly a Measure to protect certain manufacturing interests in this country. If that is the ease then we claim that the more honest course would be to introduce a protective tariff so that the country might know exactly what the Government proposes to do, To introduce legislation of this description, under the guise that it is in the interests of the consumer, is reducing Parliamentary procedure to a very low standard.
Then again, what is the item of trade which is involved in the Amendment? Very large trading interests in this country have adapted the practice of distributing knick-knacks free to their customers, some little article which can be easily carried and which will continually remind them of the goods that are being placed on the market by the firm which distributes the article. The Amendment seeks, mainly, indeed solely, to remove these knick-knacks from the purpose of the Bill. Hon. Members opposite argue that these small articles do not represent a very large trading interest, but large trading interests are made up of a multitude of small articles, and this vexatious interference with trade must mean added expenditure to the large business interests of the country. In a large store a very large range of goods must be stocked, same very small, and perhaps not representing a large value in themselves, but they all have to he handled, and the more legislation we get of this description dealing with a multitude of articles of a negligible value in themselves but representing a good deal of expenditure in the aggregate the more difficulties you will put in the way of trade.
The argument of the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon is typical of the whole way in which this Bill has been conceived. He appeared to have a grievance that a pair of cuff links had come into his possession through the post, and he imagines that if legislation can put a stop to that practice he is conferring a benefit on British trade. Every Member of this House has no doubt received representations from the trading community generally on this Bill. The Chambers of Commerce and various trading societies have done so, and on this subject they do not speak for Labour As a matter of fact, the political views of these bodies are not generally identical with those of the Labour party; their political conceptions are more in line with the views of hon. Members opposite, and yet these trading organisations are genuinely alarmed at this irritating Measure, this ill-conceived Measure, which the President of the Board of Trade has had to alter every time it has come up for consideration. If we could get this Bill adjourned for another three months it is more than
probable that the right hon. Gentleman himself would come forward and propose the Amendment which is now under consideration. This happened time after time in Committee. The difficulties were pointed out, the President of the Board of Trade made a speech, similar to the one we have listened to this afternoon,

and then after a week's consideration saw the force of the argument which was put forward. I hope he will reconsider this matter and see whether he cannot meet what is a reasonable request.

Question put, "That the word 'or' be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 211.

Division No 466.]
AYES.
[4.24 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Rose, Frank H.


Baker, J, (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Salter. Dr. Alfred


Baker, Walter
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harney, E. A.
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, 1.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Wall head, Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Day, Colonel Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Windsor, Walter


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Duncan, C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gardner, J. P.
Owen, Major G.
Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Percy Harris.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Albery, Irving James
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Frece, Sir Walter de


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Ganzoni, Sir John


Apsley, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Gates, Percy


Astor, Viscountess
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Atholl, Duchess of
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Goff, Sir Park


Balniel, Lord
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grace, John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Clayton, G. C.
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Greene, W. p. Crawford


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cope, Major William
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bennett A. J.
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Berry, Sir George
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)


Betterton, Henry B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Blundell, F. N.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Haslam, Henry C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dawson, Sir Philip
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Brass, Captain W.
Drewe, C.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R.,Scar.& Wh'by)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hills, Major John Waller


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J.G.


Briggs, J. Harold
Ellis, R. G.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Elveden, Viscount
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Bullock, Captain M.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hurd, Percy A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fielden, E. B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Campbell, E. T.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Orsmby-Gore, Hon. William
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Penny, Frederick George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Perring, Sir William George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Tinne, J. A.


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Loder, J. de V.
Raine, W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Looker, Herbert William
Ramsden, E.
Waddington, R.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Remer, J. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Remnant, Sir James
Warrender, Sir Victor


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rentoul, G. S.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (1. of W.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wells, I. R.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H


McLean, Major A.
Richardson, Sir P. W.(Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Rye, P. G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wolmer, Viscount


Malone, Major P. B.
Sandon, Lord
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Meller, R. J.
Savery, S. S.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smithers, Waldron
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Somervllie, A. A. (Windsor)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D, T.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.



Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Murchison, C. K.
Stanley, Col. Hon, G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Captain Lord Stanley and Captain Margesson,


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.



Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Streatfield, Captain S. R.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, after the first word "any," to insert the word "imported."
This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Mr. WEBB: This may be purely a drafting Amendment, but I wish to ask a question about the time limit. Subsection (5) says that the Clause is not to come into operation until the expiration of six months from the date of the passing of the Act. The rest of the Bill is full of elaborate provisions for giving the trader or manufacturer time to dispose of his stocks if they are in any way a contravention of the Bill when it becomes an Act. Does the Sub-section referred to relate to goods imported at any previous time to that laid down in the Clause? Under the Clause the trader is allowed six months in which to clear his stocks. Of course, in the case of the majority of foodstuffs stocks are all turned over within six months. But the Bill will apply to things other than foods. For instance, it will apply to imported ironmongery. I am told that the stocks in the ironmongers' shops are not turned over every six months, but are sometimes kept for two or three years. Does the Clause mean that it will be illegal, after this Bill has passed, for the ironmonger to go on offering for sale articles which
he has imported long ago and has had in stock more than six months?
Could it not be said that there would be no offence committed if the trader concerned was able to convince the authorities or the Court that the goods were imported long before the Bill became law or was introduced? If that be not done, what is to happen to the goods? Are they to be destroyed or returned to the Continent in order to be remarked, or anything of that kind? There is nothing in the Clause to decide what is to be the fate of such goods. There should be a provision either making the Bill to apply only to goods imported by a certain date, or, if that is too dangerous, allowing it to be an excuse that the man selling the goods had bona fide got them long before the Act came into force.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think a discussion on these lines now will prejudice an Amendment which is on the Paper in the name of one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, and it is an Amendment which I propose to select—in page 2, line 24, to leave out the word "six," and to insert instead thereof the word "twelve." The Amendment now under discussion is merely a drafting Amendment, and we had better get it out of the way first.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before we take the next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the President of the Board of Trade—[in page 1, line 10, after the word "trader," to insert the words, "or the name of any place or districts"] —we ought to take one which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) and other hon. Members, or take together two Amendments standing in the right hon. Gentleman's name.

Mr. WEBB: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after the word "trader," to insert the words "of or in similar goods."
This Clause will make it a penal offence to introduce from abroad goods which bear the name of any person in this country, not necessarily the name of any manufacturer of or trader in such goods in this country. It has not even to he a British name. For several hundred years, people in this country have borne names derived from every conceivable language—
Norman and Flemish and Dane are we.
People in this country bear German or Polish or Czechoslovakian names as well as purely British names. If any man outside this country bears the name of a person in this country—it may be the name of the manufacturer of an article; it may be Bernstein or Czeljewski, or any other queer name—and if he puts his own name on an article which is imported into this country, and if by chance one of the 44,000,000 inhabitants of this country happens to bear that name, that man is guilty of an offence under this Bill. That seems to be not only unnecessary but rather preposterous. It makes the operation of this Bill dependent upon a chance. It will be, perhaps, legal this year to import an article bearing the name of Czeljewski, because it may be shown that no person in this country bears that name; but next year there may be some person in this country bearing that name, and then it would be unlawful to import the article. That cannot be intended. Surely, what this Clause is intended to prevent is latent misrepresentation. Of course, if a person put on beer the name of "Bass" that would be misrepresentation, but if he put on the name of "Pilsener" that would be perfectly lawful, apparently, unless there
is someone in this country bearing that name. The person hearing the name of "Pilsener" in this country might have no connection with beer at all, or he might be a rentier, not making anything at all. Even then, to import beer marked "Pilsener" would be unlawful. That is reducing legislation to a farce.
What must be intended is that it shall be unlawful to put on an article the name of any manufacturer of or trader in that article or similar articles in this country. It cannot be any inherent offence to put a name on an article, and simply because there happens to be someone in this country, not making that article, and not in trade at all, but it may be in receipt of an income from foreign bonds but living within these islands—it cannot be intended that it should he unlawful for anything bearing his name to enter this country. That is ridiculous. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he would do all he aims at doing if he prohibited the importation of articles bearing the name of a trader or manufacturer "of or in similar goods." That gives protection against latent misrepresentation. I could have understood it if the right hon. Gentleman had prohibited the putting of a British name on an article. Possibly he was aware of the difficulty of defining what is a British name, and of giving protection to such of His Majesty's subjects as might not hear British names.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am disappointed with the right hon Gentleman, because I have always thought of him as completely accurate. In the course of his short speech he has misquoted a familiar line of Tennyson, and, in addition, his geography has rather slipped from his mind, for the beverage to which he is so deeply attached, if I remember aright, is named after the place where it is manufactured, and not after the gentleman who makes it.

Mr. HARDIE: The place was called after the man.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Pilsener was called after the man? I cannot compete with my hon. Friend's liquid knowledge. I would not reject the Amendment if there were anything in it. But do not let us, in the hope of protecting Czeljewski, on whose behalf the right hon. Gentleman appealed to us, do some-
thing which would make a very large hole in this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman wants to limit this provision to a name which is the name of an actual dealer or maker of a class of goods. The latent misrepresentation is not confined to that. What deceives a person, if he sees a label with a British name on a foreign article, is the fact that it is a British name. It is not that the ordinary buyer knows what firms deal in the article. He sees a name—John Jones, it may be—on an article, and he thinks that that is a British name, and that, therefore, the article is a British article. There is no need to put a name on these articles. All the Clause provides is that it shall not be lawful to sell goods without an indication of origin, if the seller chooses to put a name on the goods and the goods are in fact foreign—if it is the name of a British manufacturer, dealer or trader.

Mr. WEBB: Would it not cover the name of any person in the British Isles?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to accept the Amendment which would perhaps exempt the unlikely case of Mr. Czeljewski. That is not a name likely to be put on these articles. The Amendment would, at the same time, open the door to any amount of evasion of the real purpose of the Clause, provided the British name selected was not the name of a manufacturer of those particular articles or a dealer in those particular articles. I think the Clause is watertight as it stands, and I do not think anybody would suffer injury by it.

Mr. MORRISON: I gathered just now that you, Sir, decided that the second Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—after tile word "trader" to insert the words "or the name of any place or district" —should be taken in conjunction with the Amendment just moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb). I take it that we are to have a separate discussion upon the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is merely a question of the order in which the Amend-
ments appear on the Paper. I altered the order because it would read better this way.

Mr. HARRIS: It is quite clear that this Bill is pure and unadulterated Protection without any of the advantages of a general tariff. Whatever the disadvantages of a general tariff, it might bring some revenue to a depleted Exchequer, but this particular proposal has nothing of that kiind in its favour; it merely adds to the consumer's cost without any benefit to the Treasury. It is assumed that some foreign country is to be prevented by this Clause from putting British names on their goods. It seems to be forgotten that we import a great many articles from our American cousins who use the same language and the same names as we do. Many American manufacturers are of British origin, and American titles and even place names are of British origin. There is an American London and an American Plymouth and many English names of towns are to be found in America. I am with the right hon. Gentleman in wishing to prevent the public being misled or deceived deliberately in these matters, but I maintain that there is adequate protection under existing Acts of Parliament. Under the Clause as at present worded, the life of the ordinary trader will be made impossible. My attention has been called to the large importation to this country of tinned fruit, meat and salmon from America. Traders in England have established a world-wide reputation by putting their brands on these goods and dealing in them. No doubt these are the sinners that the right hon. Gentleman is after, but the result of the system of the branding of these foreign goods by British merchants is that the British brands have a reputation not only in our own country but throughout the Empire and throughout the world. These traders make it their business to see that the goods are up to a certain standard of quality and their brands stand for purity and for satisfaction to the consumer. Under this Clause that trade will be made impossible and the British merchant can no longer deal in these goods and brand them with his own brand. The whole of that business will be transferred to America.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

1. Appropriation (No. 2) Act, 1926.
2. Police Pensions Act, 1926.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANDISE MARKS (IMPORTED GOODS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) again considered.

Question again proposed, "That the words of or in similar goods' be there inserted in the Bill."

5.0 P.M.

Mr. HARRIS: I was pointing out that well-known British brands of canned goods, which are to be put on the market, will have to bear a stamp of warranty that they are handled by British merchants. I know it is the custom nowadays to speak with contempt of the middleman. I can understand certain hon. Members taking that view and wanting to nationalise industry and do away with private profits, but it surprises me that the President of the Board of Trade in a Conservative Government should go out of his way to handicap and hinder what ought to be the pride of his nation, its merchants. We have sometimes been palled a nation of shopkeepers, but, at any rate, we have a reputation of being honest shopkeepers. A large number of people make an honest living by handling millions of canned goods from America and from the Continent of Europe. I am informed that this country imports no less than 13,000,000 packages each year of canned goods, of which 2,500,000 only come from the Dominions. I understand that about 250,000 come from Singapore, so that reduces the amount from the Dominions to about 2,000,000. I would like to see that quantity increased by all possible means, but the way to help trade is not to come in with elaborate machinery of trade marks and brands which might suggest that British traders are trying to deceive and mislead the public, while all they are trying to do is to give the British public cheap goods of a good quality. I am
assured that many merchants and traders are very much concerned and worried by this Bill. They tell me that it will disorganise their business and handicap them, not only in competing for the home trade, because that is a comparatively small matter, but in competing in the markets of the world for the very large trade in tinned goods throughout the British Dominions and other parts of the world. As these Regulations require that the country of origin must be printed in large letters on the goods, it will be very likely to prejudice their sale and handicap our merchants in competition throughout the world.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: I want to raise a point which is of some interest. Every Member of this House is well aware of the great growth that has taken place in combines in industry, and I want to refer to the case of Messrs. Coats, the great thread manufacturers, which may be said to be international in its character. It has thread mills in Russia and different parts of the world. Supposing that they have a surplus of thread in some parts of the world, and that it is sent to Paisley, which is the headquarters of the firm, is that thread to be marked as being of foreign origin? The only competition here is not between Messrs. Coats and another firm, but as between the workmen in the Continental factories and the British workmen. What is to be done if Messrs Coats propose to sell goods made by their firm abroad? Will they have to put the place of origin on those goods? If the right hon. Gentleman can clear up that point, it will remove, from my point of view, a great deal of feeling which I have against the Measure.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This Clause does not put any obligation upon anyone, in the first instance, as to the mark of origin. If the goods which are sold under a British name are not of British manufacture, you must put the mark of origin upon them.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Messrs. Coats's goods are well known all over the world. They are the only thread makers of any importance. Will it mean that this firm will have to alter all their present arrangements and that all the surplus thread which they transfer here from other countries will have to be re-marked?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: They will have to comply, as every other firm has to do, with the Bill. If they choose to put their name on something which is not in fact manufactured in this country but manufactured abroad, they will have to put the correct indication of origin. I do not see why they should not do so.

Miss LAWRENCE: I feel that there should have been a money estimate in connection with this Bill, because this is exactly one of the Clauses which will mean the creation of a great army of officials. I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of traders there are in this country. The position is that, if any foreigner happens to have a namesake in England, the box which he sends need not be marked, but if he has not a namesake in England then it will be an offence for him not to mark the box, "Made abroad." But the person who has to ascertain that is the unfortunate retailer. The retailer may believe that the name on the box is unique, but there may very well be persons in England of the same name. If the foreign name does not occur in England—and knowing East London as I do, I know that there are many thousands of foreign names in East London—there is no offence. But if the

foreign name occurs in England, it is an offence not to put the country of origin on the box. If the name is unique, no offence occurs. In the first instance, the retailer, who is a busy man, is responsible; and, in the second place, there will need to be a very large number of inspectors in the service of the Department to ascertain whether in fact a crime has or has not been committed. This Bill is tempered by its unworkableness, and this Clause, which would otherwise be a very bad Clause, is mercifully tempered by the fact that no body of people will be able to apply it literally. We shall see as we go through the Bill that there are worse examples in the Clauses which follow, but I do want to point out on this Clause what is the essential character of the Bill. I do not want to use offensive language, and I will not say that the Bill is a mere pretence, but I will say that it is merely a consofatory Bill, because we have in it Clause after Clause which is meant to please the British consumer, and which, when examined, will be found to be almost useless. Therefore I shall vote against it.

Question put, "That the words of or in similar goods' be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 224.

Division No. 467.]
AYES.
[5.12 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, Walter
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R.,Elland)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barr, J
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hayes, John Henry
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromley, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kelly, W. T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G
Lawrence, Susan
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lowth, T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Whiteley, W.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Duncan, c.
Montague, Frederick
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. A. Barnes.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Apsley, Lord
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.
Balniel, Lord


Albery, Irving James
Astor, Viscountess
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Atholl, Duchess of
Barnett, Major Sir Richard


Backett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gates, Percy
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Penny, Frederick George


Bennett, A. J.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Berry, Sir George
Goff, Sir Park
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gower, Sir Robert
Perring, Sir William George


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Grace, John
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)
Phillpson, Mabel


Blundell, F. N.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Boothby, R. J. G.
Greene, W P. Crawford
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, W.


Brass, Captain W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ramsden, E.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Reid, D. D. (County Down


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harmsworth, Han. E. C. (Kent)
Remer, J. R.


Briggs, J. Harold
Harrison, G. J. C.
Remnant, Sir James


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hartington, Marquess of
Rentoul, G. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Ropner, Major L.


Bullock, Captain M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burman, J. B.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V L. (Bootle)
Rye, F. G.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, S.(York. N. R.,Scar, & Wh'by)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hills, Major John Walter
Sandon, Lord


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Savory, S. S.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'line, C.)


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A. (Birm.,w.)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.>


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthberl
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Cope, Major William
Jephcott, A. R.
Stuart, Crichton-. Lord C.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green,
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Loder, J. de V.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Looker, Herbert William
Waddington, R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warrender, Sir Victor


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (1. of W.)
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
McLean, Major A.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ellis, R. G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Elveden, Viscount
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wolmer, Viscount


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Malone, Major P. B.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Faile, Sir Bertram G.
Meller, R. J.
Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)


Fielden, E. B.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



Fraser, Captain Ian
Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Frece, Sir Walter de
Murchison, C. K.
Captain Bowyer and Captain Margesson.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Neville, R. J.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after the word "trader," to insert the words, "or the name of any place or district."
This carries out the undertaking which I gave in Committee. It was strongly urged in Committee that one should not
only say that it should be unlawful to place an English name or trade mark on a foreign article, but that to put the name of any English place without an indication of origin was just as likely to mislead. For instance, the case of Ayles-bury butter was quoted. Some butter,
so called, it was alleged, was not butter made in this country at all. There is nothing in this Clause which says that you are to mark the goods, but if you do mark them, and do so with the name of an English place or town, that is bound to convey the impression that the goods are English. Therefore, I think the Committee were quite right in inviting me to move this Amendment on the Report stage.

Mr. WEBB: I do not rise to oppose the Amendment, but merely to ask the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the drafting. The Clause, with this Amendment, will read:
the name or trade mark of any manufacturer, dealer, or trader, or the name of any place or district in the United Kingdom, not being goods produced or wholly or mainly manufactured therein, unless the name or trade mark is accompanied by an indication of origin.
Supposing I am enterprising enough to set up a factory in London, Ontario, for instance, and pack my goods and put my own name on to them, and the place where they were manufactured namely, London. Am I required, by the Clause as it will now stand, to accompany the name or trade mark by an indication of origin? have given an indication of origin and stated the place where the goods are made. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this point into consideration between now and the Bill reaching another place? There is also a further difficulty. Supposing it was "London, Ontario," and that would not do; what ought one to add? I am not quite sure what the indication of origin is to be when actually the place of manufacture is given. The difficulty then arises, what is the name of the country, and whether it should be Ontario or Canada.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Clause 9 gives a definition of "indication of origin." It says that the words "Empire manufacture" or "Foreign manufacture" are to be introduced. I propose to agree to an Amendment later on to accept the word "Empire."

Mr. WEBB: The right hon. Gentleman satisfies me, though whether he will satisfy his Department I do not know. Would it be sufficient, in my case, if I said, "Manufactured by Webb and Company, London, British Empire," or
"London, Empire"? I am not quite sure whether that is right. This is a point the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider. Another question arises with regard to Canterbury lamb. That was talked about in Committee, and I understand that that matter will be met in the next Sub-section.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes.

Mr. WEBB: The Board of Trade will take steps to allow Canterbury lamb to come in without any indication of origin. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider how he will make known the directions to be given in regard to this matter.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is an Amendment a little later on, standing in the name of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), which I propose to accept, in a slightly modified form, so as to bring the wording into line with the rest of the Bill.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I want to thank the President of the Board of Trade for the Amendment. In Committee, upstairs, I raised this point, which is one of some substance. In my own commercial experience I have known a number of cases where foreign manufacturers of machine-toofs have cast, on the bases of those toofs, the names of towns in England which are well known as centres of the machine toof industry. The object, quite clearly, was to deceive purchasers into thinking that they were buying British goods. I am not in the least impressed with the arguments of the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb). The only people who will have any difficulty in working this Clause, or any part of the Bill at all, will be those who wish to deceive. Those people who want to sell straight goods will have no difficulty at all.

Mr. R. MORRISON: The hon. Member who has just spoken said that this was a point of some substance. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade just how much substance there is in this point. Before we pass this Bill through the Report stage every hon. Member should know what it means and what are its implications. I want to put three or four points, in order to get information as to what exactly will be
the effect of the Amendment. Take the case of a West End firm—Barker's, Harrod's Stores, or any of those firms. If you go into the West End of London to-day, you will see a thousand-and-one odd articles in the windows of those firms and they have on them, regardless of where they come from, the words "Barker's, best value, 3s. 11½d." or something of that sort. Will the effect of the Amendment be that Barker's will be committing an offence if they put that on and lead the public to believe that this is a British article? Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten me on that?
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) mentioned machine toofs. I will refer to another article of ironmongery. Not very far from where I live a man has a small ironmonger's shop, and does a very good trade in lawn-mowers. I think he gets them from abroad. That is his business. The point is that this little trader, in the Spring, particularly, when everybody is buying lawn-mowers, stamps with a stencil, on the wooden handle of the lawn-mower, his name and address. He has no intention of deceiving anybody, and he knows perfectly well that every one of his customers understands that he does not make the lawn-mower. No one thinks that he does, but he puts on his name and address because he is a sensible business man, and wants to make sure that when the lawn-mower wants sharpening all the purchaser will have to do is to look at the handle and take the mower to his shop. Is the effect of this Amendment going to be that this man will not be allowed to stamp on the handle, "John Smith, Wood Green"?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: He will certainly be able to put his name on the handle, but he will also have to indicate the foreign origin of the lawn-mower.

Mr. MORRISON: Then he will have to put on, "John Smith, Wood Green; foreign lawn-mower." The other day I was asked, much to my surprise, to receive a deputation of shopkeepers from my constituency, every one of whom not only voted against me at the last election but actively worked against me. They were supporters of the right hon. Gentleman's party, and they asked me to do my best to oppose the Bill and to put
these questions. There is an article made in China sold in a jar in London, called "Essence of Ginger." The jar is made in Japan. It is an ornamental jar, and it is a question whether the contents or the jar are worth most. The jam comes from Japan; the ginger comes from China. A well-known British firm, whose name is a household word, but which I will not mention, buy that ginger from China, and put it through some process, and call it "Essence of ginger." They then put it in a Japanese jar, insert a big cork, and stamp their name on it—"So-and-so's Essence of Ginger." They will not be allowed to do that now, I take it. Will they have to put on it in future, "So-and-so's Essence of Ginger. Jar made in Japan. Ginger brought from China"? It is all very well for some of us to laugh, but I am afraid that to the poor unfortunate people who will have to administer the Act it will not be a laughing matter. I can quite see that a good many will have to employ a lawyer or Parliamentary expert in order to make sure that they are keeping within the law.
Here is an 'article I got in this House to-day—a tooth-pick from the Members' Dining Room. It says "Sterilised toothpick. Paris and London." Surely here is deception and misrepresentation, and attempted fraud on the public. Is it intended to make Members of the House who pick their teeth with this tooth-pick believe that this tooth-pick is made in London? I do not know whether it is made in London or Paris, but ever since I have been a Member these tooth-picks have been served out by waiters in the Members' Dining Room. What is going to happen to this poor unfortunate little article? Is it to be an offence, or are these people, who have, perhaps, millions in stock, to change all their methods, in order to put on exactly where the toothpick is made. And what is going to happen if the tooth-pick is made in Paris, but the paper covering is made in London?

Mr. REMER: May I ask your ruling as to whether this has anything to do with the Amendment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): It does seem to me to have something to do with this Amendment.

Mr. MORRISON: I do not think there has been a speech delivered this afternoon so germane to the actual Amendment as the one I am endeavouring to make. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary could enlighten me on these points: first of all, whether it is going to prevent a West End firm such as Barker's putting on an article "Splendid value, 4s. 10½d." or would they have to say in addition "Foreign Manufacture." Would it be necessary on a lawn mower to put in addition to "John Jones, Wood Green," the words "Foreign Manufacture"? Thirdly, how on earth are we going to deal with the problem I have raised in the case of the essence of ginger? I might have carried this case a stage further. As a matter of fact, this does actually happen to-day. I have mentioned the case of the ornamental jar being made in Japan, the ginger coming from China, and being treated by a certain process in London, and called "Essence of Ginger." When that jar finds its way into the West End of London, it has a ticket in front, "Harrods, special value" or something like that. How are you going to sort out all these complications, and protect the honest shopkeeper?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the third question is that it depends on what is implied. But if it should be a difficult case, where the special circumstances of the trade make it desirable, as I pointed out, like the case of Canterbury Lamb, if there is a good case made out, there is power to exempt.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 11, leave out from the word "Kingdom" to the word "unless" in line 12.—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.)

The following Amendment stood On the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HARRIS:

In page 2, line 13, at the end, insert the words
Every such direction, together with a schedule specifying the goods or class or description of goods to which the direction relates shall be published in the London, Edinburgh, and Belfast' Gazettes and the Board of Trade Journal,' and in such other manner as the Board of Trade may deem suitable.

Mr. HARRIS: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the Amendment in this form?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will gladly accept it if it be brought into line with the other part of the Bill, so as to read:
Every such direction shall be published in the London, Edinburgh, and Belfast Gazettes, and in such other manner as the Board of Trade may deem suitable.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, at the end, to insert the words
Every such direction shall be published in the London, Edinburgh, and Belfast Gazettes, and in such other manner as the Board of Trade may deem suitable.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. MORRISON: Does that mean that it would be published in the trade journals?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There would be no objection to any journal copying this. Presumably most will copy what is material, as they do at present.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, at the beginning, to insert the words
This Section shall not have effect in respect of the application of a name or trade mark to.
This Amendment and the next are really drafting Amendments. The object is to make plain the intention of what was done in Committee, and to show that in granting exemption we are limiting it to those cases of coverings, wrappings, and such things, which are either made to the order of the manufacturer or made with his approval.

Miss LAWRENCE: We are now getting into the thick of the complications. This raises the question of what is to happen to containers, the making of which is a very important trade. If the container contains the goods of a British maker, such as safety pins or chocolates, and the boxes come from abroad, they need not he marked "Made abroad." But supposing the retailer fills English boxes with a handful of little foreign-made fancy articles, safety pine or such like, then the containers will contain foreign goods, and must be marked "Made abroad," although the container generally is far
more valuable than the goods enclosed. The Christmas trade is coming on, and you will see multitudes of beautiful and ingenious boxes made in this country, containing a quantity of little haberdashery goods, less valuable than the boxes, which people clearly buy for the sake of the box, and not for the sake of the goods inside. If I am a manufacturer in the Commercial Road, and make Christmas boxes and send them to the shops, and someone puts in safety pins from abroad, the thing has got to be marked on the container, because you cannot possibly mark these little goods themselves. Supposing I am a Birmingham manufacturer making safety pins, and I choose to send abroad for a beautiful box to put them in, then they need not be marked at all.
Look at the double effect of this provision, which very seriously penalises English boxmakers against foreign boxmakers. If hon. Members opposite do not see it, the box trade does, and has been besieging Members of the House with the dangers of this Bill, and expressing considerable alarm. It is really a great shame that the boxmakers in

London should be prejudiced by the retailers putting into them a-handful of goods made abroad. In that case, the good English box would have to be marked "Made abroad," because it is idle to say that you can mark haberdashery goods. In the other case, where an English manufacturer provides himself with containers from abroad, in many cases there would be no mark on the container. It is like "Alice in Wonderland," and it would be quite an amusing thing to talk about, if behind this business of containers and haberdashery goods, and so forth, there were not very serious trade interests. The trade is a very great London trade, and the makers of containers are writing and demonstrating against the Bill, pointing out that under this new provision a special favour is being given to foreign boxmakers, and that their own trade may be very seriously damaged. It is one of the most topsy-turvy Clauses of a topsy-turvy Bill.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 70.

Division No. 468.]
AYES.
[5.46 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Campbell, E. T.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Albery, Irving James
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fairfax. Captain J. G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Apsley, Lord
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fielden, E. B.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Ford, Sir p. J.


Astor, Viscountess
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L,


Atholl, Duchess of
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Balniel, Lord
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fraser, Captain Ian


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Clayton, G. C.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cobb. Sir Cyril
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Ganzoni, sir John


Benn, Sir A, S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gates, Percy


Bennett, A. J.
Cope, Major William
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Berry, Sir George
Craik. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Goff, Sir Park


Birchall. Major J. Dearman
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gower, Sir Robert


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grace, John


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Curzon, Captain viscount
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)


Blundell, F. N.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Greene, W. p. Crawford


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davies, Maj. Geo, F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bowater, Colonel Sir T. Vansittart
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Dawson. Sir Philip
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Briggs, J. Harold
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Drewe, C.
Hartington, Marquess of


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Haslam, Henry C.


Bullock, Captain M.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hawke, John Anthony


Burman J. B.
Ellis, R. G.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Elveden, viscount
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V L. (Bootle)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Calne. Gordon Hall
Erskine. James Malcolm Monteith
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hills, Major John Walter
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Maore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Storry-Deans, R.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Murchison, C. K.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Neville, R. J.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hume, Sir G. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Penny, Frederick George
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hurd, Percy A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Perring, Sir William George
Tinne, J. A.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jephcott, A. R.
Philipson, Mabel
Turton, Sir Edmund Rossborough


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel sir Assheton
Waddington, R.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Raine, W.
Warrender, Sir Victor


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ramsden, E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wells, S. R.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Remer, J. R.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Remnant, Sir James
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Rentoul, G. S.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Loder, J. de V.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Looker, Herbert William
Rice, Sir Frederick
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ropner, Major L.
Withers, John James


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wolmer, Viscount


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rye, F. G.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, E. (Chester, Staly'b'ge & Hyde)


McLean, Major A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.),


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Macquisten, F. A.
Sandon, Lord
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-
Savery, S. S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sheffield. Sir Berkeley
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Malone, Major P. B.
Smith, R. w.(Aberd"n & Kinc'dine, 'C.)



Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smithers. Waldron
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Meller, R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, T.
Potts, John S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Baker, Walter
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromley, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton. Hugh
Lowth, T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davison, J, E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Whiteley, W.


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Duncan, C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.

Further Amendment made:

In page 2, line 18, leave out from the word "sale" to the second word "the" in line 21, and insert instead thereof the words
if the name or mark so applied is the name or trade mark of a manufacturer of
or of a dealer or trader in those goods in the United Kingdom and." —[Sir P. Clinliffe-Lister.]

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, after the word "Section," to insert the words "(except Sub-section (3) thereof)."
This is a drafting Amendment, inserted in order to make sure that the power to exempt shall be exercisable at once, although the rest of the Clause does not come into operation for six months. It seeks to do the same thing as an Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb).

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out the word "six," and to insert instead thereof the word "twelve."
I think this Amendment is necessary in view of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has refused to accept any of the modifications submitted in previous Amendments. It aims at dealing with the difficulties in regard to stocks in hand. The Clause as it stands provides for six months' notice after the passing of the Act. It must be obvious to hon. Members that six months will not be sufficient for certain trades and industries, particularly dealers in hardware, whose stocks are often carried forward from one year to another. If the difficulties of this Clause to traders generally are not to be emphasised in the case of those dealing in the classes of goods which I have indicated, the period of six months ought to be extended to 12 months. This question does not concern only hardware firms, furnishing firms and others of that class, but, as the Member for North Tottenham (Mr R. Morrison) has shown on an earlier Amendment, a large variety of goods handled by departmental stores and multiple shop traders might also be affected. For example, certain foods sold in glass containers are often carried forward from one half-year to another, and it would meet the convenience of the trade if the President could see his way to extend the period. While Clause 4, Sub-section (2) provides for retrospective application as regards goods which have been made the subject of an inquiry, the President insisted on retaining the application of this Clause to goods distributed by way of advertisement; I do not think such goods are covered by that provision. We sincerely hoped the President would give way to the arguments we advanced with regard to goods distributed free as adver-
tisement, but as he adhering to these particular words in the Bill it is more than ever essential that the period should be extended to six months.

Mr. MORRISON: I beg to second the Amendment.
6.0 p.m.
I would appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to accept this reasonable proposal. He, as well as every other Member on the other side of the House, knows perfectly well that this Bill will be somewhat difficult to understand, and that a good many of the retailers who come under it will have some difficulty in understanding the full implications of it. Six months is a very short period in regard to a question like this. I took the opportunity not long ago of putting before the right hon. Gentleman certain difficulties which retailers will experience under this Bill. My main point is that I want to tempt the President of the Board of Trade to grant the small concession which is asked for in this Amendment. I would like to remind the House that this Bill received its Second Reading at a time when it was impossible that it could receive proper attention at the hands of the people who will be so much affected by it, because the Second Reading was considered and the Measure was introduced at the time of the General Strike. Taking that into consideration, and the fact that when the Measure was first introduced it dealt only with foodstuffs, I think we are justified in pressing this Amendment. The scope of this Measure has now been widened to include a great many other articles.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is not so. As a matter of fact, this Clause has been narrowed down.

Mr. MORRISON: just now the President of the Board of Trade moved an Amendment which certainly widened the application of this Bill considerably. My final point is that we are now within a week or two of Christmas and shopkeepers and traders have already got their supplies in for Christmas. This Measure will not come into operation for another six months. We all know perfectly well that there are a great many hardware goods and ironmongery for sale as Christmas goods intended to be sold only at Christmas time, and if they are not sold at Christmas the shop-
keepers know that the best thing they can do is to put them away until the following Christmas season and then try to get rid of them. If the President of the Board of Trade is going to stand by this six months proposal, it means that, taking into consideration the fact that it does not look like being a, Merry Christmas but a rather gloomy one, the shopkeepers may have a large amount of hardware stock which they will have to carry over to the following Christmas. Then this Bill will probably have become an Act of Parliament, and if those shopkeepers attempt to sell those particular goods they will find themselves subject to the penalties imposed by this Measure I do not think it is an unreasonable thing to ask under these circumstances for the extension of the period from six months to twelve months.

Sir WILLIAM PERRING: Like the hon. Member who has just spoken, I am authorised to speak on behalf of the organised distributing trades, and they have no desire that this Amendment should be passed. I find much difficulty in understanding the argument as to the difficulties in which the retail traders will be placed by this proposal in the Bill From what has been said one might assume that these goods which are going to be left over at Christmas time will have to be scrapped, or burned, or done away with, but as a matter of fact all the trader has got to do is to mark them of foreign origin, and then he can go on selling them as long as he likes. Speaking on behalf of the retail distributing trades, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will not accept this Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We have had a convincing reply to this Amendment from the hon. Member opposite who has just seconded this proposal, and who seems to have really lost sight of what we are dealing with in this particular Clause. The Clause in the Bill, as drafted, was to have come into force on its enactment, and we have accepted six months as the period which is most convenient. I am told that that period is not long enough, but observe the length of the notice which we have given. It is said that people have been taken by surprise on this point, but observe the actual length of the notice which has been given. This Measure was introduced in
May last. This particular Clause went to Committee, and was discussed for a very long time, and it will not become law until next month. Consequently, there has been full notice given to everybody concerned, and they have had already a notice running between May and December, and we are going to give six months' further notice in respect of a Clause which merely says that if you are selling foreign goods under a misleading description you must put on a correcting mark, and six months' notice, I think, is as much as anyone can reasonably ask for.

Mr. HARRIS: We have plenty of support on this question, because we have received Resolutions against this Clause from the London and Manchester Chambers of Commerce, and practically everyone engaged in trade throughout the country. Those Resolutions have made it quite clear that this Clause and this Bill will seriously interfere with trade and upset business. We have just gone through a period of very serious trade depression during which a large number of men have been out of work in the coal trade. In the North of England in particular Co-operative Stores and wholesale dealers have found trade brought almost to a standstill. The purchasing power of the public has very largely decreased and stocks have been inflated. The result will be that when this Bill comes into operation retailers will find that their large stocks will take a considerable time to get rid of.
The President of the Board of Trade says this Bill has had considerable publicity, but I would remind him that it received its Second Reading on the day the. General Strike was brought to a close at a time when the newspapers had not got into circulation again. If the public had received due warning, and if this Bill had not been pushed through at a time of great inconvenience to the general public, the opposition to it would have been much more considerable, and the right hon. Gentleman would have had to make even more Amendments than the pressure of public opinion has forced him to make. Therefore, I think it is not unreasonable to ask that both wholesalers and retailers generally should be given a reasonable time to dispose of their stocks, so that after a severe trade depression they will not be subjected
to the additional loss of having to destroy their goods or go to the expense of branding them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will find that the traders will have reduced profits owing to the disorganisation of trade due to the coal stoppage during the last six months, and now on the top of all that there comes this stupid Bill which will put additional burdens upon

them. If you are going to pass a Measure of this kind surely the traders should have reasonable notice, and I contend that 12 months is not too much notice, because by that time the traders will have had a chance of disposing of their stocks without loss.

Question put, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 78.

Division No. 469.]
AYES.
[6.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Drewe, C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Albery, Irving James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Apsley, Lord
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Astor, Viscountess
Ellis, R. G.
Loder, J. de V.


Atholl, Duchess of
Elveden, Viscount
Looker, Herbert William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Balniel, Lord
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Fade, Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Major A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fielden, E. B.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Ford, Sir P. J.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Bennett, A. J.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macquisten, F. A.


Berry, Sir George
Foster, Sir Harry S
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Frece, Sir Walter de
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Malone, Major P. B.


Blundell, F. N.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Margesson, Captain D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Gates, Percy
Meller, R. J.


Bowater, Colonel Sir T. Vansittart
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank


Brass, Captain W.
Goff Sir Park
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Briggs, J. Harold
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumbid., N.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Murchison, C. K.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Neville, R. J


Bullock, Captain M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Burman, J. B.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson. O. (Westminster)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Penny, Frederick George


Caine, Gordon Hall
Harrison, G. J. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Campbell, E. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Perring, Sir William George


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hasl[...]m, Henry C.
Philipson, Mabel


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hawke. John Anthony
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Raine, W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ramsden, E.


Clarry, Reginald George
Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Clayton, G. C.
Hills, Major John Waller
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir S. J. G.
Remer. J. R.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Remnant, Sir James


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rentoul, G. S.


Cope, Major William
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Ropner, Major L.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank. Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hurst, Gerald. B.
Rye, F. G.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon, Cuthbert
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sandon, Lord


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Savery, S. S.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wise, Sir Fredric


Smithers, Waldron
Tinne, J. A.
Withers, John James


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wolmer, Viscount


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Waddington, R.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Warrender, Sir Victor
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Storry, Deans, R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Watts, Dr. T.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Wells, S. R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.



Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Major Hennessy and Captain Bowyer.


Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)



Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G, (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesday)


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromley, J
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Whiteley, W.


Duncan, C,
Montague, Frederick
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon-Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Owen, Major G.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Paling, W.



Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to require indication of origin in the ease of certain imported goods.)

Mr. WEBB: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I do this, not because I fail to recognise that the Government have thought better, for the third or fourth time, with regard to this Clause, as I see that the right hon. Gentleman is going to move to omit Sub-section (5), which is one of the worst Sub-sections in it from my point of view. I wish he had gone further, and had left out some of the other Sub-sections. It shows, after all, that argument has some effect, when we remember how obdurate he and his colleagues were during the 15 days of the Committee stage of the Bill. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having seen reason, in that he will presently move to omit Sub-section (5), and also a number of words from Sub-sections (6) and (8), and so on. There will still, how-
ever, be a great deal in this Clause—which is the essential Clause of the Bill—to which I, unfortunately, have to take exception.
In the first place, this Bill introduces what seems to us to be the vicious principle of interposing a nominated Committee between the executive Department of the Minister, who will be responsible in this House, and the traders concerned. Over and over again we have seen, under the procedure of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, that, when the matter has come before the House and representations have been made to the Minister himself, he has replied practically protecting himself by the Report of the Committee which he had himself appointed and selected for the purpose; we have found him using the Report of that Committee as an excuse for the action he has taken, without necessarily justifying himself to the House by argument. It seems to us
essential that the responsibility should rest on the Minister, rather than upon a Committee appointed by the Minister himself. I do not suggest that he would necessarily appoint partisans, but, still, it is not in human nature that he should appoint opponents, and the difficulty of discovering unbiased and impartial persons in matters of this kind is extremely great. I object to the handing over of these matters to committees who, apparently, will be paid for their services. They will be, as it were, professional committees. I will not call them professional jurymen, but, at any rate, they will be professional committee-men for this purpose, giving, apparently, their whole time to the work. I do not think any-the worse of them for that, but I do not think the House ought to consider that committees of that sort are justified for the purpose of determining large questions of policy relating to our external trade.
We had a great struggle in Committee as to what the nature of these committees should be. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that the drafting as it now stands will ensure that the proceedings of the committees shall be in every proper sense public, with proper notice, and proper hours, and proper opportunities for objectors to be there, subject, of course, to sittings in camera when anything really controversial has to be dealt with. Although, however, the proceedings of the committees will be public, they will still be open to the objection that it is they who will virtually have to settle great questions of policy affecting trades of very considerable importance. Then we object to them on the ground that the notice is hardly adequate. That point has just been discussed on Clause 1. Clause 1 will only give six months' notice before the time at which acts hitherto lawful become crimes. That, in the case of stocks, is not enough. Here there will be an inquiry and an Order in Council, and the Order in Council will settle the date at which the Order shall come into operation. That is to be not less than three months from the date of making the Order. Therefore, it looks as though, in ordinary cases, something like six months' notice will be the total notice, including all preliminary proceed-
ings and the three months' notice given by the Order. That appears to us to be altogether too short a notice for the making into new crimes of what was formerly lawful. People have a certain amount of stock on their hands, which they will not be able to continue selling without some alteration, and, as was suggested just now, the unfortunate retailer sometimes does not know whether the goods are foreign or not. Therefore, I do not think I am unduly taxing the patience of the House if I say we object to Clause 2 altogether, and the only way of registering our objection at this stage is to move to leave out the Clause.

Mr. HARRIS: On this Clause we shall have an opportunity of showing our objection to the way in which this particular scheme is to be worked. I know that there is a case for educating people in the country in geography—letting them know where the articles that they buy come from, and encouraging them to show a leaning towards home-produced or Empire-produced goods. These things are desirable, but there is a wrong way and a right way to carry out the purpose of this Bill. I think that, if we could get the President of the Board of Trade, in his private room at the offices of the Board, to make a frank statement of his opinion of his own Bill, he would not be very proud of it. He would have to admit that the only justification for the Bill taking this particular form is the successful opposition to previous Bills that had the same purpose. Private Members' Bills were introduced last year and the year before, endeavouring to do the very same thing as this Bill, and, owing to the skill, if you like, of the Opposition, and owing to the fact that many Members felt very strongly about these proposals, they, unlike this Bill, never got beyond the Committee stage.
In order to circumvent the opposition—I do not feel any doubt as to it—this Bill has been framed in this particular form. It is in the interests of the public, it is in the interests of trade, and in the interests of everyone concerned, that there should be a Schedule to the Bill specifying the articles dealt with, so that anyone reading the Bill would know what it is to effect. In order, however, to avoid a Schedule, which, of course, is open to amendment—as soon as you start
enumerating articles, you can add or subtract—the right hon. Gentleman, with the help of very skilful draftsmen, has produced this wretched Bill, with all its committees and other paraphernalia, the effect of which will be only to injure and hinder trade. It will result in the setting up of a whole body of committees. How many there will be largely depends, of course, on the President himself, but they are going to provide—I do not think this is realised by hon. Members opposite or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a lot of nice, cushy jobs for retired civil servants. The number of members of each committee is to be three, and each of them is to be paid; and, as I assume that the Bill is going to eke out its existence for a long time, so these paid jobs will go on.
If we are to have machinery of this kind, no doubt it is well that it should be worked through civil servants, who are not under the suspicion of bias, but it is a thoroughly vicious method, which will handicap and hinder trade, to set up a large number of committees to in-quire whether goods shall be branded or not, what kind of brand shall be used, whether it shall be put on the bottom or the side of the article, and so on. We have already had some experience of the inconvenience of the safeguarding machinery, and now these hundreds of committees are going to spring up under the magic wand of the President of the Board of Trade. This Clause will make it very much more difficult for trade to be carried on. I am surprised that hon. Members above the Gangway do not welcome this proposal. It is going to discredit private enterprise and make it far more difficult for a business man to earn a living, because the Board of Trade is going to interfere with him at every turn, manufacture new crimes, and drag the unfortunate tradesman before the Courts of law because, forsooth, he has failed to brand some particular article. When the public sees this machinery at work, it will realise what a serious interference it is with trade and commerce. It will make the cost of living even dearer than it is at present. One of the great reasons of the industrial unrest is the enormously increased cost of living com-pared with pre-War conditions. Now the Government, with all these elaborate committees and regulations, is going to
add even to the higher cost of living, because it will make articles more difficult to produce, requiring all sorts of inquiries and regulations.
It is too late to stop the Bill going through. Our only hope is that we may amend it a bit. If we could drop this Clause it would knock the bottom out of the Bill, and that would not be a bad thing. There is no public opinion in favour of it. The Chambers of Commerce have made it quite clear, in petitions, in letters and in Resolutions, that they are opposed to it in principle and in detail. I have here a letter from the London Chamber of Commerce, which has very strong Conservative sympathies and is inclined to support the Government. It wants a stable Government. It wants peace and tranquility, and it is largely prejudiced in favour of the Government. But this Bill and this Clause are too thick for even the London Chamber of Commerce. They unanimously passed the following Resolution:
The Council of the London Chamber of Commerce is of opinion that the country cannot afford at the present time, Voluntarily and by its own act, to destroy any portion of its existing trade. It therefore views with alarm the acceptance by the Government of an Amendment to the Merchandise Marks Bill enabling an Order to be made for the marking of manufactured goods before importation, and it is especially disturbed that the Government should have accepted this Amendment. … This Council, conscious of the fact that the re-export trade, representing some £165,000,000 per annum, is made up of a multiplicity of commodities, sees in this the possibility of the re-export trade being destroyed piece; meal. Moreover, it is opposed on principle to such comprehensive power for harm being entrusted to any appointed Committee or Minister of the Crown.
Strengthened by that Resolution, we are entitled to ask the House to vote against this Clause, and, if the result of voting against it be to destroy the Bill, the business of the country will have the advantage of being saved the increased cost which the Bill must ultimately involve.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member's principal objection to the Measure is the possibility that it will become law. I am afraid I cannot offer the Opposition Bills which are unlikely to become law. That is not the function of the Government. He cited a Resolution passed by the London Chamber of Commerce. While the council of the
London Chamber of Commerce, or a section of it, have passed one Resolution, I observe that even that body is not unanimous, because I have also received from the electrical and allied trades section of that chamber a Resolution saying they are most anxious to have the Bill, that they think the onus of proof should be on their opponents, and that not only should it be passed in the form in which it was origiNally introduced, but that there should be discretion to mark manufactured goods on importation. I could produce a far more numerous and imposing array of authorities than the hon. Member. He cited a portion of one chamber, albeit a large one, largely consisting of importers; but, more important than that, if we are to measure this in units of chambers, is the great aggregation of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, which passed a Resolution—

Mr. WEBB: When?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: When the Bill was introduced. If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I will deal with his anxiety. Their Resolution implied that they did not think the Bill went nearly far enough. They approved the principle of the Bill, but considered it should be divided into two sections, and the first dealing with imported produce should be compulsory, so they would go further than I am going. They would put a lot of things into the Bill and say straight away without inquiry, "Let us have them all marked." If, therefore, we are to decide on the judgment of these chambers of commerce, the aggregation of chambers as opposed to its separate component elements is in favour of the Measure. I noticed a speech by the president of the London Chamber of Commerce at the Mansion House in which he said it was untrue to say the opinion of the London Chamber and all its branches was against the Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: I am informed by the secretary that the Resolution I quoted was passed unanimously and that the meeting represented all sections.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It probably represented all sections that were present at the meeting, but it is plain that there were other sections not present who were not in favour of it. I
make the hon. Member a present of any support he can find in any quarter, but the great aggregation of these chambers is in favour of it. Another body that he does not cite is the Federation of British Industries. If we are to cite these bodies, why does he only cite a body of merchants? Why not manufacturers I Manufacturers are as much entitled to be cited as merchants and they are unanimously in favour. So are the National Union of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers, the pottery trade, and the cutlers. I am prepared to argue this, not by citation, but upon its merits, but if we are to have a citation of authorities, I think I have said enough to show that the balance of quoted authority is largely in favour of this Measure and this Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) was more particular and more individual in his criticism of the Clause. I thought the Socialist party was all in favour of Committees, and frequently Resolved itself into Committees. I am not sure that I cannot say the conduct of Parliamentary business is almost vested in a Committee, and therefore I was surprised that he objected to Committees.

Mr. WEBB: Elected Committees.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I see. You have to pursue the method of election. The merit of this Bill is that the Minister may rely upon advice given after inquiry. I am certain if I introduced a Bill and said everything was to be marked, there would be a howl of indignation from the right lion. Gentleman, "How do you know what wants to be marked? You should have careful inquiry as to what should be marked and how and when it should be marked." I have heard him say in Committee that even the smallest objector: should be heard. What is the good of saying that if we are not to have a Committee? How are you going to hear all the objections unless you have a Committee? Every single body that has ever investigated this question of merchandise marks; every Committee that has reported, departmental or general, has invariably said the right and only possible way of dealing with this is to have inquiries as to what ought to be marked and the method
of marking. It is idle to say that is going to take away Parliamentary or Ministerial responsibility, It will be open to the right hon. Gentleman, if he thinks the Government are conducting this business improperly in the appointment of Committees or in the action they take upon the report of a Committee—he knows enough about Parliamentary practice to know that every avenue of attack is open to him—to do anything, from putting down a Vote of Censure on the Government to raising it on my Vote, or the Vote of the Minister of Agriculture. Every Order that is made has to lie on the Table, and if he objects to the Order he can move a Prayer against it. It is really ridiculous to suggest that we are devolving our responsibility, either as a Government or as a House of Commons, upon a Committee because we ask the Committee to make inquiries.
Finally, his objection was that there was insufficient notice. Really how much notice is required? I think notice which will see us well over the next General Election was in his mind. The Bill was introduced in May; therefore, people have known it was coming on. The Committees have to be appointed. If an inquiry is to be held, there has to be 28 days' published notice before an inquiry can take place, so that people can snake their objections. Then the inquiry takes place. The Committee have to consider their report and it has to be published. After it has been published, if the Government are of opinion that it should be carried out, they frame an Order. When the Order is framed it has to lie for 20 Parliamentary days. It will then be at least three months before it can come into force. When I am told that this notice is inadequate to bring to the attention of people what is going to be done, really I think more valid objections must be adduced.

Mr. HARDIE: I have been trying to understand how it is possible to get such a confused Bill as this. When we on this side seek to do anything by a Bill which is called Socialistic, hon. Members opposite always say that we shall create another flock of paid officials. They never try to meet the arguments or to debate the principles of the Bill; they always try to steal away from the argu-
ments by saying that our proposals will create a new flock of officials. If any Bill was calculated to create officials, this Bill seems to me to go pretty near to the maximum. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green South-West (Mr. Harris) referred to the need for educating the British public in geography. I am all for education, but this will be a very expensive form of education in geography, because everything that is done by this Bill is done in what I call the underhand way. The Government wish to secure Protection, despite the statement made by the present Prime Minister that he was not being returned on the Protectionist issue. Therefore, they introduce a Merchandise Marks Bill and try to cover up their real business.
This Clause starts with a public inquiry, then a Committee is appointed, the Committee has to report, and then the Department considers the Report, and it may or may not act upon the Report. If any Clause in the Bill ought to have something definite in it, it is this Clause, because it is the main Clause. If the Government had any definite ideas, they would have put in this Clause the determining factor, and would have avoided the necessity of using the word "may." it cannot be a question of "may." These Committees are to be composed of experts, and it must follow that the Government must accept the findings of their experts, because, they say that these gentlemen know more about it than the Government. What a silly thing it is after having set up a Committee of experts, to insert the word "may." Surely, the Department are bound to accept what the Committee recommend.
We hear about new crimes and present crimes. This Bill does not go near dealing with any present crimes. We do not know how it will work. We cannot say what it will do, because we do not know how the committees will act, whether they will be guided by personal interests or by the big principle of national interest. That is where danger comes in in committee work under this Bill. At the present time, there is a great trade going on in the raising of country eggs. We find that when people cannot make their farms pay by running country eggs, they buy cases of Danish eggs, dip them in buttermilk and then Polish them off with a
piece of chamois leather, and they come out as country eggs. There ought to have been something in the Bill, if it is to protect the consumer from the profiteer, of a definite character to protect him against that sort of thing. There is also the production of butter. A man may make a little butter, and then he brings in some foreign butter, mixes it with the home product, doubles the quantity and sends out this mixed butter as being just fresh from the farm and made in this country. The Government ought to deal with that kind of thing, and with that object in view they ought to have been quite definite and have left out the permissive word "may." The use of "may" is always the line taken by those who are ignorant on the subject, or who are afraid to pursue the right course.
When we come to the end of the Clause, we reach the point with respect to an Order-in-Council. Why are the Government worrying about an Order-in-Council? There is only one way of righting the wrong from which we suffer as consumers, and that is to get at the basis of things. This Bill does not really protect the consumer. It has been left in a much worse position than it was before. Complications are bound to follow the action of the various committees. Their investigations will produce a mass of contradictions, which are bound to arise from the various personal interests in the trades to which the members of the committees belong. It would have been far better had the Government said: "We have tried, but we have failed, and we will have another try by producing a better Bill." This Bill as it stands accomplishes nothing but the formation of committees, with 10 chances to one that each committee will report against the other. We have had evidence to-day of contradictions in the letter read from the London Chamber of Commerce by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, South-West (Mr. Harris), and the letter read by the President of the Board of Trade from the same body, giving another opinion. That shows clearly that the Government are not getting down to this matter in the right way. They ought to have known definitely that this Bill had a majority of support in the country, but they cannot say that.
It is no use reading letters from Chambers of Commerce. We all know that members of Chambers of Commerce are simply swayed by interest in their own trade. I know of Tories who are Tories in everything else, but because Free Trade is good for their business they are against anything la the way of Protection. In Chambers of Commerce the personal interest comes in, and that is why there is difference of opinion. I hope the Government will not further blacken their already black record, but that they will take thought and mind, as we say in Scotland, and pass this Bill on to another Department, in order that it may be reconstructed and brought forward for further consideration later.

Miss LAWRENCE: I do not think it has been sufficiently emphasised how extraordinarily the scope of this Bill was increased in Committee. When the Bill left this House, Clause 2 (2) read:
If it appears to a committee to be desirable that any imported goods being foodstuffs should bear an indication of origin at the time of importation. …
The words "being foodstuffs" were struck out in Committee.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am preserving that point for subsequent discussion. It will arise later.

Miss LAWRENCE: I only alluded to that here because I wanted to explain how it is that the London Chamber of Commerce is so very much disturbed. I only want to point out that the reason the London Chamber of Commerce and other chambers of commerce have become so much alarmed, was because of the alteration which took place in Committee and that the letter which was read from the London Chamber of Commerce on the Second Reading, generally blessing the principles of the Bill, was a, letter which does not apply to Clause 2 as it stands at the present time it is true that certain chambers of commerce have blessed the Bill, but I want hon. Members to bear in mind that those chambers of commerce which have blessed the Bill are inland bodies, and that the people who are so excessively exasperated in regard to the matter are the port chambers of commerce. I want to speak on behalf of the London Chamber of Commerce. The London Chamber of Commerce is not a negligible body.
A very great part of the unemployment in London is the direct result of the slackness of trade in the Landon docks, and when I speak upon this matter I have in my mind very vividly the great numbers of unemployed persons along the riverside in Poplar, West Ham and East Ham who are out of work because of the slackness of trade. The Volume of the trade of the Port of London is an extra-ordinarily important thing, Every London Member of Parliament realises that daily in seeing the results of slack-ness of trade in the homes of the people. What the London Chamber of Commerce complains of is the interference with the re-export trade and the difficulties with regard to what is called the entrepot trade. The list of those sections of the London Chamber of Commerce who oppose this Bill is very large—the Canned Goods Section, the China and Glassware Section, the East India Section, the Fancy Goods Section, the Green Fruit and Vegetables Section, the Appliances Wholesale Section, the Import and Export Merchants' Association. I do not suppose there is anything more important to the riverside than the trade carried on by these people. Then there are the Glass and Proprietary Articles Section, the Butter Trade Section, the Perfumery Manufacturers Section, the Petroleum Oil Trade Section—which is very important—the Silk Trade Section, the South African Section, the West African Section, and many others.
All these sections are in the utmost alarm and point out that the trade which they represent is estimated at £165,000,000 a year. They say that, especially at the present time, it is a very dangerous thing to place any restriction upon commerce. They instance especially the difficulties of the re-export trade and say that what is in the Bill does not help them, because the merchant goes abroad to one of the Continental entrepot markets and picks up, perhaps, a great quantity of goods which have not been marked prior to importation, and can-not be so marked, because the destiny of the goods is not known by those who send the goods to these entrepot markets. The Bill will very seriously injure the buying of these goods, because it is obvious that such goods cannot be-marked prior to importation. They go into the Continental market without the
producer knowing the country of destination. Further, with regard to the re-export trade it is pointed out that the destiny of these goods is still uncertain even after the goods have reached England. The merchant buys the stuff, but he has no knowledge until his orders come in whether he will send the goods inland in this country or re-export them to other places. Inland chambers of commerce composed of manufacturers who have an eye to their own goods, and I do not blame them, are ignorant of the circumstances of our export and import trade.
7.0 P.M.
When you have a great body of merchants in a port like London and in other ports of the country, not from any question of polities, because these people are generally Conservative in politics, not with any possible prejudice, but as practical people knowing their business, explaining to us that this Clause, enlarged as it was in Committee, is detrimental to their trade, then I think that the President of the Board of Trade, whose duty it is not to look after industry, but to look after trade, should think two or three times before he does what in the opinion of the merchants who carry on the trade will hamper their business. It is true of this Bill that every section is concerned with pushing off the duty on to somebody else. The merchants want to push it off on to the retailer or wholesaler. The retailer wishes to push it off on to the, wholesaler or on to the market prior to importation. Every section of the community, which is charged with the responsibility of carrying out this Bill, is out on the warpath trying, if they cannot get this Bill destroyed, at any rate to get the onerous burdens shifted on to some other section of the public. You will find that Chambers of Commerce who approve of this Bill are asking that the merchants should have the trouble of it, and not they themselves. Every class of industry, wholesalers, retailers, manufacturers and merchants, are unanimous in saying that, whoever has the responsibility of marking the goods, it should not be themselves. It is true that the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce want the manufacturers to hold the baby, and that the manufacturers are asking that, if anything really must be done, someone else in trade must bear the burden.
That is the explanation of the conflicting positions of Chambers of Commerce. As the Bill shifted and took shape in Committee, as it altered from day to day, as the Minister brought in fresh Amendments to satisfy those hungrily yelping outside, as he made concessions and gave a little sop to one trade interest, so their colleagues in another part of industry invariably pointed out that the concessions given to one had weakened their own position. There never has been a Bill so cut about and so amended. Its protection is its very tediousness. If it had been a more interesting subject, if Members-mild have watched the variations, they would have realised that a Bill so shifting in its character, so pulled about by competing interests, must be a Bill based on a wrong principle. What is protecting this Bill is that Members opposite believe it is all to the best, and will more or less protect British trade. British trade itself is crying outside the doors of Parliament, and any Members who will listen will hear it begging them to protect it from its friends. The House is making a mistake in pressing through so highly technical and complicated a Bill of this kind.
It is said that the consumer should know. That is an easy object. If you want to let the consumer know, let all British goods bear upon them the label, "Made in Britain," and leave it at that. It would be a very simple thing to instruct all British manufacturers to place on their goods, "Made in England," or "Made in Scotland," as the case may be. Then you would not have any of these complications or any necessity for setting up innumerable Committees. That would be the simple, plain, straightforward way of attaining that object. Can anyone not see that if the difficult, complicated, contentious way is chosen, it is because something more is wanted than informing the consumer? It is because it is thought that this Bill will in some way or other restrict the importation of foreign goods. If all that was necessary was to tell the consumer what he was buying, why did the right hon. Gentleman not have that simple piece of legislation and ask all manufacturers to put on their goods, "Made in England"? If he had done that, the London Chamber of Commerce would not
be telling him that he was seriously injuring the re-export trade. That that simple course was not taken is one of the greatest condemnations of the Bill, and exposes what I believe to be its real purpose and what undoubtedly will be its real effect.

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope that hon. Members will keep to Clause 2, and not discuss the whole Bill.

Mr. BARNES: I think that this occasion is a suitable one on which to draw the attention of the House to the very grave changes that have taken place in Committee since the Bill received its Second Reading. A great deal of attention has been devoted to the fact that the interests which claim to represent the distributive and export trades in this country are now found to oppose this Bill, and particularly Clause 2. If there is that change, there must be a reason for it, but, as Mr. Speaker has decided that the discussion on the words "Foodstuffs" must be taken separately, I do not want to mention that change at this particular moment, except to point out that this is the reason for the opposition. Those Members who listened to the explanation of the President of the Board of Trade, when he quoted various other chambers and representative bodies as against the London Chamber of Commerce, must have noticed that the President of the Board of Trade was referring to manufacturers' associations, whereas the London Chamber of Commerce, the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, and the organisations which the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) read out, represent the distributive side. That is worth emphasis for the reason that this Bill was introduced ostensibly to protect the interests of the consumer, to disclose to the consumer the origin a the products he was buying. Either the Bill still intends to serve that purpose, or it has been changed in character. It is futile for the President of the Board of Trade to bring forward manufacturing associations, for, if he does, he merely discloses the fact that this is a Protectionist Bill. He mentioned the Electrical Manufacturers' Association as supporting this Bill. Those who wilt look at the organisations which the hon. Member for East Ham North, read out—and
she did not complete them—will find that the Electrical Importers and Traders' Association are opposing this Bill. That brings us to the kernel of the whole matter. I do not know of any distributive organisation in the country, whether it represents the food trade, the dry goods trade, general merchandise, or any other trade involving shipping, that is supporting this Bill. The only organisations that the President can quote are manufacturing organisations.
Let me emphasise the main factors that influence the consumer. If the consumer be poor, like the vast majority of consumers in this country, price is the first consideration. With all the difficulties that Clause 2 raises, there is very considerable ground for fearing that price in ninny directions may be affected. The second item of consideration is quality. If the consumer be well-to-do, quality takes a prior place to price; in the general run of purchasers in this country, quality comes second to price. As a matter of fact, this Bill does not deal with the problem of quality at all. Take Danish bacon. It has not gained its position, on the English market because it is inferior to British products or because it has been foisted on the public through insufficient knowledge. It has built up its reputation on the British market on a standard of quality. Anyone, who has given any study to the tendency of purchasers and to what builds up the trade in any article, will know that the best line of progress is by merchants establishing a certain grade of quality, a standard of goods that they submit to the consumer, and which the consumer knows will be a standard quality and one which there is some security in buying. This Bill, instead of improving the British market or the Dominion market, is going to worsen it and to benefit the foreign importer. When we come to the third point that interests the consumer, the matter of sentiment, here I agree that the disclosure of the origin can in a subsidiary sense, provided that the other two factors of price and quality are taken into consideration, prove a desirable thing in the sales of a commodity. Anyone engaged in trade knows that the advertisement of Empire and home products is improving the sale of those commodities. The sentimental bent of a purchaser in this country is first to purchase home pro-
ducts, secondly Imperial products, and lastly foreign products. That is the sentimental desire of the consumer; what modifies it is the price and the quality.
This House would be better engaged, on behalf of British trade generally, if it paid more attention to that problem of price and quality in regard to British and Imperial products rather than in passing vexatious legislation of this description, which hampers trade, makes the problem of commerce and industry much more difficult and in its last resort builds up opposition. You may say that the consumers of the country will not understand the Bill. They will not. The average man in the street is not bothering about the Bill at the moment, but in trade the irritations introduced by measures of this description, though slow in their accumulation, are inevitable in their consequences. That is why the general merchandise interests of the country have so far been powerful enough to prevent legislation of this description. There is another aspect of sentiment which the Bill does not touch at all, and which fortifies me in my statement that, it is a Bill in the manufacturers' interest and not in that of the consumers. If we desire to appeal to the sentimental aspect of the consumer, there is one thing that would interest the consumer very much indeed, and that is that the standard of labour, the hours worked, the rate of wages—

Mr. SPEAKER: It is as I feared. The House is debating the Third Reading of the Bill, rather than the Clause. I think we had better keep these arguments to a later stage.

Mr. BARNES: I do not desire to stray from the Clause, and if that line of argument be out of order I will reserve it until the Third Reading Debate, if I get the chance. May I turn to the question of the entrepot trade of this country. I represent one of the riverside constituencies in East London, and this is a matter of considerable importance to us. Take the Port of London to-day. Any legislation that tends to interfere with the quick handling of commodities, particularly in the Port of London where we have a natural congestion of road traffic because of the way the Port of London has developed with a vast population around it, is a matter of very
serious consideration for traders. This Clause, in view of the way it has been altered in Committee—55 new lines have been added to the Clause and all merchandise has been brought in under Amendments which were carried up-stairs—does introduce a great deal of difficulty.
Let me quote one or two instances to show how impossible it is to work legislation of this character. Take musical instruments, which are already covered by the McKenna Duties. They represent a series of difficulties. Last year musical instruments of the value of £1,184,000 were imported. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] It may be a shame, but, if hon. Members opposite desire to deal with the importation of foreign goods, let us deal with that subject properly, not on a Bill the ostensible purpose of which is to protect the customer. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman did not argue that the Bill had any protective purpose at all. Of the musical instruments which were imported into this country last year, over £90,000 worth were subsequently re-exported. The merchants in this country who purchase these goods cannot possibly distinguish what instruments will be re-exported. As a matter of fact, if these instruments are to be marked, as they will be in future, it will lead to this development, that the merchants abroad who buy from our importers will know the origin of the goods, because it has to be disclosed, and they then may prefer to go to the direct market rather than to the secondary market. The circular trade of this country, which has largely built up the mercantile fleet of this island, will he interfered with.
The manufactured article represents a small trade in bulk, but a valuable trade in figures, whereas food imports represent a large bulk of comparatively small value. But a good deal of the food supplies of this country depends on our merchant ships having a valuable cargo of manufactured goods both on the inward and outward journeys. I claim to speak on behalf of the consumers, and I say that this Bill is not in the interests of the consumers but of manufacturers entirely. There is another point, and it is an indication what little consideration has been given to the drafting of the Bill. It was pointed out in Committee how difficult it was to
mark certain goods, certain parts of machines and machinery, when they came into this country. The President of the Board of Trade sought to get out of that difficulty by passing a, new Sub-section dealing with this category of goods, but after further investigation he has now to admit that the marking of certain goods by a colour mark is impracticable. That is an indication of the sort of difficulty that will develop. If this Bill is going to be effective, it means that there must be not only a multitude of committees—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House, but the Sub-section to which he refers was always in the Bill. When the Committee gave a general discretion to mark on importation it became unnecessary, and that is the reason why it was left out.

Mr. BARNES: The point I was coming to is the establishment of these committees and the problem of inspection. If general merchandise is now to be subject to the provisions of this Bill, it will mean a multitude of committees at the Board of Trade. A new and dangerous practice is developing in the legislation of this country. So far we have been governed by our representative institutions, but in recent legislation, and particularly in this Bill, we seem to be moving towards government by committees. I do not wish to argue that a committee has not a distinct place in our representative institutions. Obviously, Parliament, or any other council, cannot go into all matters of detail, but to establish in a Government Department a multitude of committees, which are to he paid, and which are to be nominated by the President of the Board of Trade or by the Minister of. Agriculture, who only represent a certain passing political and economic point of view, is a very dangerous practice indeed. If ultimately these committees have power over a large quantity and range of goods, how is the Act going to be supervised? We shall want a multitude of new inspectors; otherwise, the Bill is going to become a dead-letter. And there is nothing worse than for Parliament to pass Acts which it is unable to enforce. Many trades and industries come under this Bill, and it will be impossible for any local authority with its present staff to supervise it effectively.

Question put, "That the word 'After' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 82.

Division No. 470.]
AYES.
[7.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Albery, Irving James
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Foxcroft, Captain C, T.
Penny, Frederick George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Apsley, Lord
Ganzoni, Sir John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gates, Percy
Perring, Sir William George


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Astor, Viscountess
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Philipson, Mabel


Atholl, Duchess of
Goff. Sir Park
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Baldwin, Art. Hon. Stanley
Gower, Sir Robert
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grace, John
Price, Major C. W. M.


Balniel, Lord
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumbid., N.)
Radford, E. A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Raine, W.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ramsden, E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hackinq, Captain Douglas H.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Bennett, A. J.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Berry, Sir George
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Remer, J. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harrison, G. J, C.
Remnant, Sir James


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hartington, Marquess of
Rentoul, G. S.


Blundell, F. N.
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Haslam, Henry C.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Richardson, Sir P. W, (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brass. Captain W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M,
Ropner, Major L.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briggs, J. Harold
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford. Watford)
Sandon, Lord


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R.,scar-& Wn'by)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hills, Major John Waller
Savery, S. S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Burman, J. B.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Skelton, A. N.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hope. Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Smithers, Waldron


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Campbell, E. T.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cassels, J. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Cautley, sir Henry S.
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Horbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Jephcott, A. R.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Kennedy, A, R. (Preston)
Stuart, Crichton- Lord C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser-


Charteris, Brigadier-General J,
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sugden, sir Wilfrid


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
King. Captain Henry Douglas
Templeton, W. P.


Clarry, Renlnald George
Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Clayton, G. C.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. sir Philip
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
L'oyd Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tinne, J. A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Loder, J. de V.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Looker. Herbert William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Waddington, R,


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere
Warner, Brigadier-General W, W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Watts, Dr. T.


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Wells, S. R.


Davies. Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil)
McLean. Major A.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McNeill. Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Dawson, Sir Phillip
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Drewe, C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Withers, John James


Edmondson. Major A. J.
Marriott, Sir I. A. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Meller. R. J.
Wood. B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Ellis, R. G.
Meyer. Sir Frank
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Eiveden, Viscount
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Mitchofl, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Erskine, James Malcolm Montefth
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Evans. Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Murchison, C. K.



Fielden, E. B.
Neville. R J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ford, Sir P. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Major Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, Walter
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Barnes, A
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)


Briant, Frank
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sullivan, Joseph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Thomson, Treveiyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawfurd, H. E.
lee, F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davison, J. C. (Smethwick)
Lowth, T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Whiteley, W.


Duncan, C
Montague, Frederick
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gosling, Harry
Owen, Major G.



Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, A, (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr, T. Henderson and Mr. B. Smith.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.



Grundy, T. W.
Purceil, A. A.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out the word "public."
This Amendment should be read in conjunction with one standing in my name on page 3, line 2—at the end to insert the words
The sitting of a Committee shall, while evidence is being taken, he open to the public unless the evidence relates to matters which are, in the opinion of the Committee, of a confidential character.

Mr. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some information as to the kind of evidence he has in mind, which it would not be desirable to make public?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter can be raised on the subsequent Amendment already referred to, which is a substantial Amendment.

Mr. BARNES: We do not desire this matter to be passed so easily. We had a long debate on the point in Committee, and the President of the Board of Trade has not submitted any reasons why we should go back on the decision reached by the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. As far as I can see, the whole discretion now as to what is confidential information, and what should be disclosed to the public, is left to these Committees. Later on, when we discuss another Amendment dealing with the "appropriate Department,"
very strong arguments can be advanced that the appropriate Department might be a very biased Department. These committees will be paid committees, and, from our experience under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, we know that information which came From those committees to the House was insufficient and called for a good deal of opposition and complaint from various quarters in the House. Moreover, very substantial interests in the country which are affected by legislation of that description were able to produce evidence that they had not sufficient opportunity to present their case. As this government by committee is creating a very serious problem, particularly under this Bill, the President of the Board of Trade ought to submit more cogent reasons for this departure from the proposal of the Clause as it left the Committee. What kind of information can come before a committee under the Bill that could be claimed to be of a confidential character?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: On a point of Order. That is exactly the question which I understand you ruled out of order just now, Sir, and said was to be answered on the next Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The lion. Member has perhaps overlooked the Amendment near the top of the next page, to which reference was made by the President of the Board of Trade. That seems to be a
better place to raise the point. The hon. Gentleman can move Amendments to that Amendment if he likes.

Mr. BARNES: I understand that the Amendment under discussion is to delete the word "public."

Mr. SPEAKER: With a view to reinserting it a little later.

Mr. BARNES: But if we delete it here, can we go over the same ground again in re-inserting it? I thought the whole question would be debated best on the deletion of the word "public," which represents the Clause as it left the Standing Committee.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think so, because the later Amendment gives a wider opportunity of discussing the question whether evidence of a confidential character should be heard in secret. I think the hon. Member would have a better chance later.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May I suggest that the word "public," if left in here, makes the whole inquiry public, whereas if we rely on the later Amendment which the President of the Board of Trade intends to move, publicity applies only, in the first place, to the time when the evidence is being taken, and, in the second place, to publicity when it is considered desirable in view of members of the Committee. Therefore, I suggest that it is on the present word "public" that debate should turn, as to whether the inquiries are to be public affairs from beginning to end, or whether they are to be confidential in parts, according to the Minister's suggestion.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not mind which way it is taken, but I think I am furthering the interests of hon. Members in taking the discussion on the later Amendment.

Captain BENN: Amendments may be moved to that later Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly. Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out the words "appropriate Department," and to insert instead thereof the words "Board of Trade."
It may come as a surprise to the President of the Board of Trade that I have
such an affection for his Department, I can assure him that I have no particular bias in his favour, or animosity against his right hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture. On the contrary, I have always found the President of the Board of Agriculture a most conciliatory and ideal Minister presiding over his particular Department. But there is here a question of principle which is of vast importance to consumers in this country. The 141inistry of Agriculture exists specifically to look after the producers of food and to promote their interests, and his bias would be, not in the interest of consumers, nor of trade, but in the interest of the farmers and the cultivators of the soil, and those who desire to get as little competition and as high a price for their produce as possible, and to sell in as Protective a market as they can reasonably expect the country to give them. I maintain that the right Department to look after consumers and trade is the Board of Trade. The Food Ministry origiNally sprang out of the Board of Trade, and when it was wound up it went back to the Board of Trade.
It is the Board of Trade which by constitution and tradition is the proper Department to look after the trade of the country, to take a wide outlook in relation to the interests of the community as a whole, and not only to consider the farmers. If the Prime Minister is committed to anything, it is that he will do nothing to add to the cost of food. There may be differences of opinion about the advisability of safeguarding industries or adding to the cost of articles of manufacture, but I understand that the party opposite is pledged, at any rate during this Parliament, to add nothing to the cost of food. Therefore, the Ministry of Agriculture should not be given this powerful instrument for protecting the British farmer by imposing on exporters to this country regulations and restrictions that must sooner or later add to the cost of an article when it reaches this country. I know that the President of the Board of Trade is very sensitive about Resolutions of trading organisations. He made great play with the fact that, although I was able to produce a Resolution of the London Chamber of Commerce, yet he was able in return to produce a Resolution of the Federation of British Industries. I have
no doubt that he will be able to produce Resolutions of the Farmers' Unions in various parts of the country. They would like to be free from competition. They would like to see stamped eggs and butter, marked meat, discoloured bacon, and fruit and vegetables with indications of the country of origin. That would make the foreign article much less attractive and more expensive, and by that means the farmer would get a measure of protection.
The Board of Trade on the other hand could point to Resolutions from various traders who import these things from abroad—the fruit industry; Covent Garden, which is not to be despised; the great export trade in fruit and vegetables. It should be the Board of Trade s duty to look after these representations. The matter would not be safe in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, however benevolent he might be. Our imports of food are not sold only in this country. Owing to our free trade, and the fact that our ports have been open, all the fruits of America and the Continent have poured into London to be sent all over Europe, as well as over this country. If, on the other hand, we enforce the restrictive regulations in this Bill, I am assured by the trades concerned that much of this business will be diverted from London to Antwerp and Cherbourg and other Continental ports. We have not the advantage of being on the mainland, but in the past, despite that fact, goods poured into this country and were distributed from Mincing Lane and the markets all round the port of London. I am afraid if the interests of traders in produce are placed at the tender mercies of the Minister of Agriculture they will not be looked after, because that Minister's duty and responsibility will be to look after, not the traders nor the consumers, but the agricultural interests. I think it only fair to the Minister of Agriculture himself that he should be relieved of a responsibility which is not properly his.

Mr. MORRISON: I beg to second the Amendment.
To those of us who were not privileged to be on the Committee which dealt with this Bill, the discussion so far has been an eye-opener. The Government have abandoned all pretence that this Bill is
for the object of preventing misrepresentation and fraud on the consumer. It becomes obvious that the object of the Bill is quite different. I find that during the Debates in the Committee the Minister of Agriculture himself made a speech which showed that, whatever might be the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Agriculture knew the real object of the Bill. Speaking in the Committee on 6th July in reference to an Amendment to exclude eggs from the provisions of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said:
If we were to accept this Amendment I think we should destroy the whole utility of this. Bill in the case of eggs. They must be marked before importation … if the home producer is to be assisted at all effectively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B., 6th July, 1926; col. 322.]
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members applaud that passage. I am glad they have thrown off any mask of pretence as to the real purpose of the Bill. This is evidently a Bill to assist the home producer. Yet we were told by the President of the Board of Trade that it was a. Bill to prevent fraud and misrepresentation in the interests of the consumer. It is a remarkable thing that no organised body of consumers has made any representations in favour of the Bill, and the Co-operative organisation, representing 5,000,000 people, by far the largest, if not the only organised body of consumers in the country, is opposing it. That is why we are anxious that the Board of Trade should deal with these matters rather than tile Ministry of Agriculture, which has experience of the import or export trades in foodstuffs or anything else.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The idea behind this Amendment seems to be that there is an antagonism between producers and consumers in this country on the matter with which the Bill deals. That is not a well-founded idea. Admittedly we are thinking chiefly of the producer. It is in his interest that we believe that the consumer should be allowed to know whether he is buying foreign goods or British goods; but we do not think that is in any way contrary to the convenience or interest of the consumer. We certainly are not bringing this Measure forward as a method of Protection. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr.
Harris) argued as though my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade were a Free Trader and could be trusted to see that nothing Protectionist was done; whereas I should be tempted into the dangerous paths of Protection. I do not think we need pursue arguments of that kind in regard to the perfectly simple question as to which Department is best qualified to deal with the setting up of committees and the making of orders dealing with particular classes of goods. We believe that smooth working will best be secured if these duties are committed to the Departments which are in touch with the producers concerned.
It was made clear in Committee by speakers for the agricultural interest that they were very anxious that the Ministry of Agriculture should be charged with the administration arid machinery of this Bill in matters affecting the home producer of foodstuffs. It is not because the Board of Trade is inaccessible that they desire this arrangement, but it is obviously easier for agriculturists to have their case dealt with by a Department with which they are continually in touch, instead of going to the Board of Trade with which in the ordinary way they have very little connection. We believe that in the detailed administration of this Bill it will be an advantage to have departments responsible who are aware of the advantages and the difficulties of a particular proposal and we have made provision for due elasticity in Clause 9, Subsection (1), which enables border-line cases to be transferred to the Board of Trade. If, after consultation between the Ministry of Agriculture and my right hon. Friends who represent the agriculturists in Northern Ireland and in Scotland, it is decided that the importation of an article such as tea is more within the purview of the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade will be advised that for the purposes of this definition, tea or any other product shall go to a committee which is not primarily concerned with foodstuffs. But I think it is obvious that it will be fairly easy to draw a line between the various classes of goods. Manufactured articles and articles in respect of which there is no corresponding home production are best dealt with by the Department which is concerned with our international trade. But perishable goods will undoubtedly produce analogous problems, and it is much better that they
should be dealt with by one Department and by one committee. In this way we shall not only get efficient administration, but we shall secure uniformity in the recommendations of the Commitee and in the decisions based upon those recommendations.

Mr. BARNES: I do not think the fiscal views of the Ministers concerned represent our immediate anxiety. It is a question of the experience and the functions of the two Departments. The Minister of Agriculture tried to suggest that no difficulty was involved as regards the interests of the producer and consumer, but as a matter of fact there can be considerable difference between those interests. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point in reference to perishable goods. In the case of fruit the producer in this country has a definite interest, say, in the non-marketing of a spoiling crop of cherries from the Continent. In such a case the interests of the consumer and the British producer are antagonistic. It is to the interest of the consumer that any large importation of cherries should be brought. on to the market and should lie available, because it would have the effect of bringing down prices, whereas it is to the interest of the British fruit grower that any large importations of foreign fruit should not find its way easily and readily and in a fresh condition on to the British market. Therefore that argument of the right hon. Gentleman will not stand investigation.
But we want to view this matter in a wider aspect. This Bill represents a serious and fundamental change in the trade of this country. The Board of Trade has always been responsible for supervising our international trade whether in food or general merchandise. As the Department responsible for all import and export trade it has had a large experience of the factors which influence, for good or bad, each particular trade. Its officers are acquainted with the interests involved. They are in touch with the experts of the different industries and the people who could serve on committees of this description are better known to the Board of Trade than to the Ministry of Agriculture. That Department is confined in its administrative experience largely, if not entirely, to British agriculture. We know that agriculture in this country is essentially
Protectionist in its outlook. One does not quarrel with its purpose and intention in this respect, but we have larger interests to watch. We all desire to develop British agriculture as far as we can, but I do not think we can allow this interest to intrude on the larger problem of international trade. When Protection is advocated in this sectional sense the tendency is to take a narrow view and one could not expect the British farmer, whose influence finds its way to the Ministry of Agriculture, to be primarily concerned with the Dominion or foreign producer.
The British agriculturist is entitled to be primarily interested in the producers of this country, but when we come to the consumpton of the goods we must have regard to the larger question of our export trades, whose manufacturing costs depend so largely on the importation of 75 per cent. of our food supplies from abroad. There an entirely new issue develops. Parliament has found by practical experience that it is to the interest of all sections of the community that the Board of Trade, which is not subject to any sectional pressure in this country, should be responsible for this kind of administration. It will be introducing a dangerous factor if we hand over to the Ministry of Agriculture the appointment of committees dealing with food supplies.
8.0 P.M.
I want to illustrate it by just one recent experience. Many years ago in this country we had, mainly in the agricultural interest, an embargo put on the importation of Canadian cattle. It has taken something like 30 years of general agitation in the community before it has been possible to get that embargo removed. In food supplies there are always passing difficulties. We have had an instance recently in regard to imported cherries. There are always passing difficulties in regard to which one could bring forward a reasonable case for the importation of this commodity or that commodity, and if the Minister of Agriculture is to have the right of supervising these committees one can easily understand that they will become a new weapon of power in the hands of his Department, and that this Bill will be, from the point of view of its general purpose, misapplied. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Agri-
culture, in view of the large interests involved, will not proceed with this, but will ease the mind of large numbers of the traders in this country by allowing the previous practice, of the Board of Trade being the appropriate Department, to continue.

Major CRAWFURD: I think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Guinness), which was an answer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), does deserve a specific answer from these benches. Personally, I think it was valuable by reason of the omissions which the right hon. Gentleman made. It has been the great difficulty of Members on this side of the House, during the course of the various discussions on the variety of protective measures brought in by the Government, to nail the Government spokesmen down to a particular point, and I think the House ought to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because, in the course of his remarks, he came nearer to complete candour than any other Member of the Government has done since this Parliament began. We all know that he, at any rate, is thinking primarily of the producer. Although nobody wishes to use the word misrepresentation in regard to any statement of the right hon. Gentleman's, perhaps I may say that his rather genial method of disposing of one of my hon. Friend's arguments was a little misleading. It was not hat my hon. Friend was suspecting the President of the Board of Trade of Free Trade tendencies —nobody would do that—but he was merely saying that, despite the personal attributes of the right hon. Gentleman, even as compared with his colleagues, it was not a matter of personality but of principle. The right hon. Gentleman himself brought forward that principle in a statement of his own. He said, if I remember his words rightly, that my hon. Friend seemed to think that there was a conflict of interests between the producer and the consumer in these matters, and he, on the other hand, by implication suggested that the interests of the producer and the consumer were really one. I think that, despite the instances that have been cited, most people will be disposed to agree with him.
The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for reminding him that the whole
course of legislation in this country, from the year 1842 to the year 1865, which covered the great Free Trade period, was based on the principle that if the consumers were prosperous and the food supplies of the world were open to them, then the producers too would be prosperous. The argument we are advancing by this specific Amendment is simply that if you are going to have a committee of this kind of Department which, in the right hon. Gentleman's own words, is largely thinking principally of producers, then their interests will be considered largely and it will be a partial affection. It is not that the right hon. Gentleman's colleague the president of the Board of Trade is one to whom we would hand over the interests of the consumers alone, but it is

that the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman's colleague presides is by its nature—I will not say under its present rule—certain to regard the interests of the consumer. It is the only Department capable of bring made the guardian of the consumers' interest, and it is because we think that that Department is the only one capable, of being suede the guardian of the consumers' interest, and because we think that the Ministry of Agriculture can by its nature only have a partial affection for the consumer, that we consider the Amendment is justified.

Question put, "That the words appropriate Department ' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 208: Noes, 82.

Division No. 471.]
AYES.
[8.8 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Drewe, c
[...]ephcott A. R.


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Apsley, Lord
Ellis, R. G.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Ashley, Lt -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
King Captain Henry Douglas


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Atholl, Duchess of
Everard, W. Lindsay
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Balniel, Lord
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Loder, J. de V.


Berry, Sir George
[...]deg[...], F., B.
Looker, Herbert William


Betterton, Henry B.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Birchall, Major J, Dearman
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Blundell F. N.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Brass, Captain W.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Briggs, J. Harold
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Major A


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gates, Percy
Macmillan, Captain H.


Brown, Brig Gen. H. c. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McNeill, Rt. Hon, Ronald John


Bullock, Captain M.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macquisten, F. A.


Burman, J. B.
Goff, Sir Park
MacRobert, Alexander M


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Cadoqan, Major Hon. Edward
Grace, John
Malone, Major P. B.


Campbell, E. T.
Greene, W. p. Crawford
Margesson, Captain D.


Cassels, J. D.
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)
Meller, R. J.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City)
Gunston, Captain D. W
Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, W. Foof (Saffron Walden)


Cazalet Captain Victor A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hartington, Marquess of
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A (Birm., W.)
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Haslam, Henry c.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hawke, John Anthony
Murchlson, C. K.


Clayton, G. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newille, R. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Heneane, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nuttall, Ellis


Cope, Major William
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Herbert, S. (York. N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Penny, Frederick George


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hills, Major John Waller
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hogn, Rt. Hon Sir D (St Marylebone)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Perring, Sir William George


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Daldel, Sir Davison
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney.N.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, R, s. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
[...] Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Radford, E. A.


Davies. Dr. Vernon
Hurd, Percy A.
Raine, W.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Ramsden, E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Remer, J. R,


Remnant, Sir James
Storry-Deans, R.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Rice, Sir Frederick
Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ropner, Major L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rye, F. G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Templeton, w. P.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Thorn, Lt-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Withers, John James


Sandon, Lord
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wolmer, Viscount


Savery, S. S.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wood, E (Chest'r. Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Tinne, J. A.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Skelton, A. N.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Wragg, Herbert


Smith, R. w.{Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T,


Smithers, Waldron
Waddington, R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.



Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Warrender, Sir Victor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Watson, Rt. Han. W. (Carlisle)
Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain Bowyer.


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Watts, Dr. T.



Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wells, S. n.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall. F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilson)
Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, w. C. (Yorks, W. R.,Eiland)


Baker, Walter
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Heyday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromley, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sullivan, Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton. E.)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, Ernest


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lawrence, Susan
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lee, F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Cot. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
March S.
Williams, c. P. Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold



Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Sir Robert Hutchison and Major Owen


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Groves, T.
Potts, John S.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, after the word "them," to insert the words "that the interests of the users or consumers of such goods or."
I move this Amendment with very good reason. We have been so long talking about these trade matters that we have begun to think that we have to legislate only for the manufacturers, producers, traders, merchants, and so forth, quite ignoring the real purpose of legislation, which should be to bring better food and better articles into the homes of everyone. In drafting Bills of this character, it is up to us to keep before the House all the needs and interests of the people; if the Bill he a good one they ought to get an advantage, whereas, on the other hand, if it be—as we believe—a bad one, they will suffer. It. is the public, ultimately, who always pay. The manufacturer gets relief from competi-
tion and the advantage of higher prices. The merchant has n closed market, and he can pass on to the consumer the higher prices. He may sell fewer articles, but, owing to the increased prices, his trade returns do not suffer. In all these inquiries in committees, the public seems nearly always to be ignored. The poor, ordinary, general public cannot organise itself. The housewife, the working woman, who has, in any case, to pay higher, can grumble at her shopkeeper or complain to her husband that the money he hands over do's not go so far as before, but it is very difficult for her to bring pressure through any organisation or trade machinery on the committee of inquiry, the Board of Trade, or the appropriate Department which is dealing with these matters. For that reason, some words of this character are essential.
There is another side to be considered, for which I have provided in my Amendment. That is the interests of the users of various articles that are likely to be marked and branded under this Clause. Trade is very complex. We may very innocently require that some articles should be branded in order to assist home industry and, at the same time, perhaps do untold injury to the person who uses that article. I am told—I do not know how far it is correct—that the plate-glass manufacturers of England are very anxious to be freed from the competition of window-glass manufacturers in Belgium. It is clear that under the Bill the building trade will be justified in claiming to be heard; they are users of glass, which is an important raw product in their work. Another article likely to be affected is leather. The leather manufacturers in many parts of the country have always been very vocal in claiming freedom from competition and in saying how unfair it is that American, German and Austrian leather, and the various leathers manufacturered on the Continent, should pour into this country unbranded and undistinguishable from the British article, and should interfere with the tanners in Birmingham and the leather manufacturers in other parts of the country. On the other hand, how far are the users of leather, the boot manufacturers and the hundred-and-one trades that use leather, to have a right to go before the committee and make representations? Therefore, some widening of the words are necessary and those that I propose are most appropriate. They will, on the one hand, protect the consumer and, on the other, protect the user. One cannot be too precise in the language of an Act of Parliament. It is not the business of committees to know what is in the minds of either the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary. The working of those gentle- men's minds is mysterious; even hon. Members who work on the committees do not know what is at the back of their minds. We want words in the Bill to be so clear that he who runs may read, and the committees should be able to know exactly what the House of Commons intended.

Major OWEN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir B. CHADWICK: If my mind is as obscure in regard to the workings of the mind of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, as his is in regard to mine, then I have some sympathy with him. He wishes to introduce the expression, "users or consumers." I wish to impress on him that the whole basis of this Bill is to benefit the user and the consumer. We should remember that this Bill, in the main, is directed towards enlightening the men and women in the street who buy their goods across the counter in the shop, so that they may know and may have an opportunity of exercising their choice as to whether they will buy Empire or foreign goods. Therefore, to speak about the interests of the consumer being neglected or overlooked is to misdescribe the whole motive of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of various aspects of trade and of the neglect of the housewife. I suppose he would say that the housewife would not have any opportunity of stating her case before a committee dealing with one of these subjects in which she, as a consumer, is interested. That is perfectly untrue. If the Society of East Ham Housewives—if there be such—a society—[An HON. MEMBER: "We will make one for you."]—or any other body of housewives or consumers in the country chooses to come and state their case before the committee, they will be patiently heard. They will have an opportunity of stating their case with other people who are particularly interested in the matter under consideration.

Mr. HARRIS: Are there any words in the Bill providing that mothers or housewives' organisations should be heard? Are there any words under which they can claim a right to be heard?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The Bill provides that before inquiries are made, representatives shall be heard from those substantially interested in the matter under discussion. Questions such as those of plate glass, leather and so forth, come within the various opportunities that are given for examination. I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It becomes increasingly clear, despite what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that, taking a line through the speeches we have heard
from the Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Board of Trade, this Bill, which is introduced ostensibly to protect the consumer, is leaving him out of the question entirely and that his interests seem to be the last to be considered. Take the question we are considering at the moment. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that to speak of the Bill as being in favour of the producer and not of the consumer was to misdescribe it. This Clause raises the whole question of price; it is bound to come in. It may be assumed that as regards the fruit trade, for instance, the average English wife in buying cherries or strawberries is not very concerned to know whether they are English or foreign. I do not suppose she cares a curse whether they are English or foreign. What she wants is fresh cherries, and she wants them at the cheapest possible price. If they are going to be delayed at the ports, prices are bound to be raised.
I understand there is a kind of disease which affects cherries. I believe that after a time cherries go what is called "sleepy." It is said that at the present time 2 lbs. out of 12 lbs. of cherries will become unfit for sale through delay in

the sale, and the longer they are kept at the port through delays in marking, the more the cherries will deteriorate, and the higher the price is bound to be, both for the imported and the home cherries. I am informed that in one month alone there came into the port of Hull as many as 769,000 packages of fruit, and 203,000 packages of vegetables, and the London, Southampton and Liverpool trade was probably greater. When it is remembered that you may get a rush of 150,000 packages at various ports, it is obvious that any delay in the marking of goods of this description is hound to have an effect upon their quality and more fruit is bound to go wrong, and the more that becomes unfit, the higher the price is bound to be, because the wholesaler will cover himself, and the retailer will cover himself. Delays of this description, therefore, are bound to raise the price to the consumer, and I beg to support the inclusion of these words, which would give the consumer the protection he needs under the Bill.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 205.

Division No. 472.]
AYES.
8.30 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.


Baker, J (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, Walter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Barker, G (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr Alfred


Barnes, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthu[...]
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromley, J.
Haves, John Henry
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H.
Stamford, X W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sullivan, Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomson, Trevelvan (Middleshro. W.)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawrence, Susan
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davison, J E. (Smethwick)
Lee, F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondd[...])


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Whiteley, W.


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Montaque, Frederick
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


England, Colonel A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Walter


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold



Gillett. George M.
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Sir Robert Hutchison and Major Owen.


Greenall, D, R. (Glamorgan)
ponsonby, Arthur



Groves, T.
Potts, John S.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Albery, Irving James
Bennett, A. J.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Apofin, Colonel R. V. K.
Berry, Sir George
Brass, Captain W.


Apsley, Lord
Betterton, Henry B.
Briggs, J. Harold


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Brittain, Sir Harry


Balniel, Lord
Blundell, F. N.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Radford, E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hawke, John Anthony
Raine, W.


Bullock, Captain M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Burman, J. B.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hencage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Remer, J. R.


Cadoqan, Major Hon. Edward
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Remnant, Sir James


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cassels, J. D.
Herbert, S.(York.N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by}
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hills, Major John Waller
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Ropner, Major L.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rye, F. G.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N)
Sandon, Lord


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Savery, S. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Shaw, R. G. (yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Skelton, A. N.


Cope, Major William
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.'C.)


Courtauld, Major J. S
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smithers, Waldron


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Dalkeith. Earl of
King. Captain Henry Douglas
Storry- Deans, R.


Daiziel, Sir Davison
Lister, Cunliffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Davies, sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Loder, J. de V.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Looker, Herbert William
Suqden, Sir Wilfrid


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Templeton, W. P.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Drews, C.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edmondson, Major A. J,
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tinne, J. A.


Ellis, R. G.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catncart)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Elveden, Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waddington, R.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McNeill, Rt. Hon, Ronald John
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, F. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Falle, sir Bertram G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Watts, Dr. T.


Fielden, E. B.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Wells, S. R.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Meller, R. J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meyer, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Frece, sir Waiter de
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gates, Percy
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Withers, John James


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Murchison, C. K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Neville, R. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Goff, Sir Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Grace, John
Nuttall, Ellis
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Han. Sir L.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Penny, Frederick George
Wragg, Herbert


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perkins, Colonel E, K.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perring, Sir William George



Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peto, Basil E. [Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain Lord Stanley.


Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton



Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Price, Major C. W. M.

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 41, after the word "Majesty" to insert the words "in Council."—[Sir B. Chadwick.]

Mr. MORRISON: Cannot we have some explanation of this Amendment?

Sir B. CHADWICK: This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir B. CHADWICK: I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, at the end, to insert the words
(2) The sitting of a Committee shall while evidence is being taken he open to the public unless the evidence relates to matters which are, in the opinion of the Committee, of a confidential character.
This Amendment will give the Committee the necessary opportunity of sitting in private when the character of the evidence is regarded as confidential. In accepting in Committee an Amendment to include the word "public" in this Clause the President of the Board of Trade said:
I ought to explain that I propose to accept it subject to the important point
that on report we may wish to put in words to show that confidential information shall not be disclosed.
This Amendment is to carry out that undertaking.

Mr. MORRISON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from the word "public" to the end of the proposed Amendment.
The effect of my Amendment will be that when evidence is being taken the sittings of a Committee shall be open to the public. I move this Amendment because I feel, as we proceed further and further with the consideration of this Bill, that it becomes increasingly evident that the public ought to have every opportunity of understanding what this legislation is about. When we started this afternoon the President of the Board of Trade announced that this was a consumers' Bill. He had previously stated that its only object was to prevent consumers being imposed upon by misrepresentations about goods. Then his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, butting briefly into the discussion about an hour ago, announced that the object of the Measure, so far as he was concerned, was to protect the home producer. Then, a few minutes ago, the Parliamentary Secretary, in the temporary absence of his chief, claimed that it was an Education Bill, saying its real object was to educate the people of this country. Perhaps I may be more dense than the average Member, but may I be pardoned for saying there is some little excuse for us if we feel rather uncertain as to what the real object is? After having solemnly assured us that this was an Education Bill to educate the people of this country, why does the Parliamentary Secretary propose that the public should not be admitted to these inquiries? If these inquiries are not to be open to the public, it is a curious way of attempting to educate the people.
But, seriously, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some indication of the kind of evidence which it is expected will be regarded as confidential? This is not a question of prices, or of putting figures or costs before a Committee. We have been told specifically that it is a Bill to prevent misrepresenta-
tion and fraud by traders. What confidential information does the Parliamentary Secretary erect the Committee will have before them which will make it necessary for them to decide in advance to keep out the public? Is this precaution being taken in case something may be submitted, or has he got anything in his mind at the present time? We are in some confusion on these benches regarding the Bill, because as yet nobody on the Government side, except from the Treasury Bench, has risen to defend the Bill.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to second the Amendment.
What the Amendment submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary really means is that the inquiry shall be public until it becomes extremely interesting, at which point the committee will sit in private. As long as the evidence is not of a particularly sensational or interesting kind, it can be given in public, hut as soon as it touches the interest of somebody or other the committee are to have the opportunity of sitting in private. That is an exceedingly bad plan. All the important decisions under this Bill are to be made by committees. Nothing in the Bill is operative except by the good will of the committee. The Bill deals with a multitude of interests, interlocking interests, and in some cases competing interests; and we are dealing also with an interest which has not yet been sufficiently referred to— the interest of the consumer. These committees are to do everything. To them will be delegated the power which Parliament has given to the Minister. It is the committees, and not this House, who will decide which article is to be marked, how it is to be marked, whether it is to be prohibited, or whether it is to he coloured so as to make it distasteful to the public. Those are great powers to give to a committee of private persons, and it becomes almost intolerable if any of the evidence is to be excluded from the public proceedings of the committee.
I cannot imagine why these Committees should be treated more tenderly than a Royal Commission. If a Royal Commission were doing this work it would, by custom, sit in public, and in a case where we are dealing with a multitude of interests, and where a rule made in favour of one person may damage
hundreds of others, it is grossly unfair that the persons interested should not have the opportunity of hearing the evidence. I am certain this provision will lead to more discontent amongst large classes of traders than almost all the rest of the Bill. We have seen already how oil this question of marking the interests of the manufacturer, the retailer, the wholesaler and the merchant are by no means Colnciding interests. The Clause proposes to put the burden of marking on to another section of the trade. Suppose these points are taken before the Committee. Suppose an article is to be marked and the point of interest is whether the retailer or the merchant should be responsible. Imagine how much the discontent will be increased if the merchant scores a point at the expense of the retailer, and the evidence on which that course has been taken is not placed before the parties concerned. Is it not the case that even by this Act you may benefit the manufacturer at the expense of the consumer? Is it not also the case that you may benefit the retailer at the expense of the wholesaler? On technical questions of this character, where profits are concerned, it seems quite absurd to condemn certain sections of the trade without letting them know the reason why. I feel sure that the Department concerned will wish before the. Act has been in force two or three years that they had let this question alone. I think that is inevitable. The sense of rankling grievance which will arise through having your case judged in private without you being able to submit evidence will enormously aggravate the wrongs which will be clone by this Bill.

Mr. GILLETT: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what sort of secrets it is considered should be considered in private. If information were being given about the private profits of certain firms, one could see some reason for having the Committee sitting in private, although in the past even those sittings have not been quite satisfactory. When I look at this proposal I cannot think of anything like that because it cannot he a question of divulging secrets about profits. If it is a case where is is thought the marks are not genuine, surely the Minister does not want to hide the fact that the marks are not genuine, or that you are putting on Dominion marks
when the real mark should he some country on the Continent. I cannot see why the Minister should wish to make anything of that kind private. It is absolutely impossible for me to think of anything that really needs to be discussed in private in regard to this matter, and the Minister has not risen in order to enlighten us in any way in regard to the proposals which are now before the House. I think we should be given some idea of what is going to be considered in private. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has no idea of what can be considered in private in regard to these matters, and if that is so then we shall have to conclude that the Minister knows no more than we do upon this question.

Sir B. CHADWICK: The hon. Gentleman opposite stated that he cannot imagine any kind of circumstances which would justify a confidential sitting of one of these committees, and after making that statement he immediately went on to give an excellent example of trade secrets. Obviously there are matters in connection with trade which it might he injurious to divulge before a Committee in a public manner. This provision has been applied to other committees in the past, and we have an excellent precedent in regard to those Committees under the Safeguarding of Industries White Paper which are conferring such an inestimable benefit on the country.

Mr. BARNES: I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary understands the purpose of this Amendment, and he has certainly misunderstood the purport of the speeches which have been made on this question. I should certainly like to draw attention to the fact that we had a long debate in Committee on this matter and the arguments in favour of publicity were overwhelming. Now we are faced with proposals which place the whole question in the hands of these committees as to when they shall sit in public and when they shall sit in private. It is desirable that hon. Members should recollect, the purpose of this Bill. We are not dealing with trade secrets on the terms of contracts. We are not dealing with the purchase price of commodities in regard to the merchants of this country or elsewhere. We are merely deciding whether it is in the interests of trade and the consumers of this country that certain articles should be marked, how I hey shall
be marked, and when they shall be marked. It is merely a matter of public judgment as to whether this knowledge that will be given to the consumer will be outweighed by the interference which may take place wits regard to the trade. Therefore I think we can argue quite reasonably that there is no matter which will come within the purview of these committees which can be regarded as confidential, or should be treated privately instead of being considered in the ordinary way.
When you come to safeguarding and matters of that kind, you require an investigation as to the working cost, but here there is no question of the working cost. It is not the cost of the article that the Committee will have to investigate, but simply whether it is desirable in the public interest that a certain article should be marked or not. The question of price arises ultimately, but no firm, under this proposal, will be called upon to disclose its working cost, the design, or anything of that kind. Therefore, we feel that the arguments which prevailed upstairs are equally effective on this occasion. I think it will be entirely wrong that matters of this kind should be relegated to committees who are paid, in which I have no confidence at all. In regard to committees and commissions appointed representing various interests concerned and consisting of persons of public

standing in matters where public reputations are at stake, bodies which can look at things from a wide, impartial standpoint, the public and trading interests have some measure of security; but when you have a Department which has the right to nominate paid committees with the power to introduce a procedure which is fundamentally wrong, the case is quite different. To allow these paid nominces, with all the economic prejudices and interests which are influencing that Department, to decide these matters is quite wrong, because these committees are not even composed of civil servants. I take it that these committees will not even be composed of permanent officers of the Civil Service, but will be drawn from all kinds of quarters, that may he desirable or undesirable, and they are to have the power to deride what part of their proceedings shall be heard in public and what part shall he heard in private. I think we have an excellent case; in fact, the only safeguard we have against the operation of this Bill is that the proceedings shall be public, and, in View of the fact that there are no good reasons why they should not be, I hope the House will agree to this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 83

Division No. 473.]
AYES
[8.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut, -Colonel
Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Albery, Irving James
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fielden. E. B.


Apsley, Lord
Clarry, Reginald George
Ford, Sir P. J.


Astbury, Lieut. -Commander F. W.
Clayton. G. C.
Forestier-Walker, sir L.


Balniel, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foster. Sir Harry S.


Barnett, Major sir Richard
Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Beamish, Captain T. p. H.
Cockerill, Brig. -General sir G. K.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Bennett. A. J.
Cope, Major William
Galbraith J. F. W.


Berry, Sir George
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Betterton, Henry B.
Cowan, Sir Win. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Gates. Percy


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Craik. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gilmour, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Blundell. F. N.
Crooke. J. Smedley (Derltend)
Goff, Sir Park


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gower, Sir Robert


Bowyer, Capt G. E. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Grace, John


Briggs, J. Harold
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Greene, W. p. Crawford


Brocklebank. C. E. R.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brown, Brig, -Gen. H. C (Berks, Newb'y)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hacking. Captain Douglas H.


Bullock, Captain M.
Drewe, C.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Burman. J. S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hartington, Marquess of


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Haslam, Henry C.


Campbell, E. T.
Ellis, R. G.
Hawke, John Anthony


Cassels, J. D.
Elveden, Viscount
Headlam, Lieut. -Colonel C. M-


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Henderson, Lieut. -Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur P.


Hennessy, Major J.R. G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Stanley, Lord(Fylde)


Hills, Major John Waller
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Hon. u. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Storry-Deans, R,


Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hope, Sir Harry(Forfar)
Murchison, C. K.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Neville, R. J.
Stuart, Crichton-,Lord C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U M (Hackney, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hudson, R. s. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteb'n)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hume Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Nuttall, Ellis
Templeton, W. P.


Hurd, Percy A.
O'Connor. T. J. (Bedtord, Luton)
Thorn, Rt. Col. J. G.(Dumbarton)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Penny, Frederick George
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tinne, J. A.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jephcott, A. R.
Perring, Sir William George
Waddington, R.


Kennedy, A. R(Preston).
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Price, Major C. W. M.
Watts, Dr. T.


Lister, Cunliffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Radford, E. A.
Wells, S. R.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Raine, W.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Ramsden, E.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Loder, J. de V.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Looker, Herbert William
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Williams, Herbert G.(Reading)


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Remer, J.R.
Windsor,Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Luce, Maj-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wise, Sir Fredric


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Richardson, Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Withers, John James


Macdonald. Capt P. D. (I.of w.)
Ropner, Major L.
Wolmer, Viscount


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rye, F.G.
Womersley, W. J.


McLean, Major A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Woodcock, Colonel H.C.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sandon, Lord
Wragg, Herbert


Macquisten, F. A.
Savery, S.S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton(Norwich)


Malone, Major PS
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)



Margesson, Captain D,
Skelton, A.N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Meller, R. J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. F.C. Thomson.


Mever, Sir Frank
Smithers, Waldron



Mitchell, S.(Lanark, Lanark)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Halt, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Riley, Ben


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W.C.(Yorks, W. R.,Elland)


Baker, Walter
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abetilliery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Barr J.
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn(Merioneth)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Evan(Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Davison, J.E.(Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Webb Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Morrison, R.C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


England, Colonel A.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J.(Jarrow)


Gibbins, Joseph
Owen, Major G.
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gosling, Hairy
Paling, W.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T
Potts, John S.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 72.

Division No. 474.]
AYES.
[9.6 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bennett, A. J.


Albery, Irving James
Balniel, Lord
Betterton, Henry B.


Applin, Colonel R.V. K.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Apsley, Lord
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Blundell, F. N.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hartington, Marquess of
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bowyer, Cap., G E. W
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Radford, E. A.


Briggs, J. Harold
Haslam, Henry C.
Raine, W.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hawke, John Anthony
Ramsden, E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Brown, Brig.-Gen, H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Romer, J. R.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Burman, J. B.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Herbert, S. (York,N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hills, Major John Waller
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Campbell, E. T.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ropner, Major L.


Cassels, J. D.
Hogg, Ht. Hon.Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rye, F. G.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cayzer, Maj.SirHerbt. H.(Prtsmth,S.)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sandon, Lord


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Savery, S. S.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton, A. N.


Clayton, G. C.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,'C.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smithers, Waldron


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jephcott, A. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cope, Major William
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
King Captain Henry Douglas
Storry- Deans, R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Loder, J. de V.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Looker, Herbert William
Sugden, sir Wilfrid


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lord, Walter Greaves
Templeton, W. P.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Luce,Major.Gen.Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W Mitchell-


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tinne, J. A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Waddington, R.


Ellis, R. G.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Elveden, Viscount
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Warrender, sir Victor


England, Colonel A.
Macquisten, F. A.
Watson, St. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watts, Dr. T.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Malone, Major P, B.
Wells, S. R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Meller, R. J.
White, Lieut.-Col, Sir G. Dairymple-


Fielden, E. B.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wiqgins, William Martin


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Frece, Sir Walter de
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Withers, John James


Gates, Percy
Murchison, C. K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Neville, R. J.
Womersiey, W. J.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde


Goff, Sir Park
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Gower, Sir Robert
Nuttall, Ellis
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Grace, John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)
Penny, Frederick George
Wragg, Herbert


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perring, Sir William George



Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hammersley, S. S.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Connolly, M.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cove, W. G.
Hardie, George D.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hayday, Arthur


Baker, Walter
Day, Colonel Harry
Hirst, G. H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dennison, R.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Barnes, A.
Duncan, C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Barr, J.
Gardner, J. P.
Kelly, W. T.


Batey, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph
Kennedy, T.


Bromley, J.
Gillett, George M.
Lansbury, George


Charleton, H. C.
Gosling, Harry
Lawrence, Susan


Cluse, W. S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lee, F.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Groves, T.
Lowth, T.


Compton, Joseph
Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William




March, S.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Townend, A. E.


Montague, Frederick
Scrymgeour, E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Naylor, T. E.
Scurr, John
Wallhead, Richard C.


Oliver, George Harold
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Palin, John Henry
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Paling, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Whiteley, W.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Potts, John S.
Stamford, T. W.
Windsor, Walter


Purcell, A. A
Sullivan, Joseph
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)



Riley, Ben
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R., Elland)
Thurtle, Ernest
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 4, leave out the word "articles" and insert instead thereof the word "goods."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 8, after the word "dealers," to insert the word "traders."—[Mr. Riley.]

Mr. PALING: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think this is symmetrical, and I accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): There is a manuscript Amendment to leave out Sub-section (4). At the same time there is an Amendment on the Paper to amend Sub-section (4) by inserting the words "being foodstuffs" after the word "goods." I think I ought to point out that while it would be quite in order to move to omit the whole Sub-section, if the discussion turned on the question of foodstuffs being included or not included the Amendment to insert "being foodstuffs" could not be accepted on the principle that we cannot have the same discussion twice over. I only mention that by way of caution, in ease the right hon. Gentleman intended to rest his argument on the question of foodstuffs.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Might I suggest that the discussion could conveniently take place on the two Amendments together as I gather that the effect of one Amendment is, "Let there be a marking of anything on importation," while the other says, "Let there be a marking, if need be, of foodstuffs on importation but of nothing else." It is very difficult to discuss the one without trenching on the other. If I may suggest it, a general discussion might be taken on both points together and they could be voted on separately.

Mr. HARRIS: The importance of the Amendment which stands in my name is
that it restores the Bill to its original character. The chief objection to this section of the Bill is that it has been so fundamentally altered in Committee.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would be extremely difficult to discuss the Subsection as a- whole without entering upon the question of foodstuffs. Probably the most convenient way would he to have one discussion on both, and two divisions if hon. Members wish.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, to leave out Sub-section (4).
The Amendment is wrongly printed on the Paper. Clause 2 is really the Bill as a whole, and Sub-section (4) is the most important part of Clause 2. This Subsection gives to the committees powers which are likely to prove a hindrance to trade. It is left to the Committee to say whether it is desirable that any imported goods should bear indication of origin at the time of importation and, further.
if any such goods required by any such Order to bear an indication of origin at the time of importation do not at that time bear such an indication they shall he deemed to be goods which are prohibited to be imported…
We now come to the point which I tried to put to the House in the Debate on the whole Clause, which the merchants consider, rightly or wrongly, to be a very severe handicap and embarrassment to them. We have been told that the people who are most, strenuously opposed to this part of the Bill are precisely the merchants and the Chambers of Commerce representing the larger ports. These people point out to us that to mark goods prior to importation—which is an innovation in the Bill, which was put in in Committee—means a very considerable hindrance and grievance to those engaged in trade. They point out that, in the first place, when they buy goods in the general entrepot markets, those goods, not being at the moment intended for any particular country, will not be marked and
cannot be marked. They explain to us that in the interests of cheapness these markets are extremely useful, that they go there and buy goods under more favourable conditions than obtain in any other markets. Such goods, bought in the entrepot market, cannot be marked prior to importation. Sub-section (4) means practically a prohibition against buying goods in these particular markets, which are designed, as it were, for the world as a whole and not simply for England.
These traders further point out that this restriction will cause great difficulty in regard to re-export, and that the concessions given in regard to re-exportation do not meet their case, because just as in the entrepot markets so in the re-export trade no one knows to what country the goods may eventually go on re-export. When a merchant imports goods he does not know at the time whether he intends to re-export them or to sell them in the borne market. If we insist that these goods should be marked prior to exportation, it means in the opinion of those who carry on this re-export trade—there are very great numbers of them in London and a great number of sections of the London Chamber of Commerce have expressed themselves against this part of the Bill—we are inflicting a hindrance upon trade, involving merchants in extra cost, and doing this at a time when trade is so depressed, particularly in our ports, that any wise Government should do everything in their power to remove the slightest semblance of complaint.
Hon. Members will realise how complicated the machinery will be, if they look at paragraphs (a) and (b). There we have not merely the Board of Trade concerned, hut the Customs Officer. The Customs Officer is being entrusted with the discharge of a duty which he will find it very difficult to perform. Another point is, what "appropriate department" means. Later in the Bill, we understand that the appropriate department would mean the Ministry of Agriculture. The case put up by the traders is that this question of foreign buying, re-exportation and so forth torches matters with which the Ministry of Agriculture is not familiar, that these are questions of trade, questions of com-
plicated trade adjustments and trade arrangements of which the Ministry of Agriculture can have no information. Such questions as protecting English pears and English cherries or fruit from America or potatoes from all over the world, with a single eye to the British producer is one thing; but it is important to remember that the Ministry of Agriculture is not familiar with trade, and to refer the things which are dealt with here to the Ministry of Agriculture is to refer the case of the merchants to a tribunal which is, in their opinion, an ignorant tribunal, a tribunal which is not familiar with their troubles and one which will not, therefore, give them the consideration which they desire.
For all these reasons, those engaged in commerce object very strongly to Subsection (4). The people who favour the marking of goods on import are the retailers and wholesalers, particularly the retailers for the reason, and no one can blame them, that they say that it is a most intolerable business for the retail man to have the responsibility of marking goods. That is true. The retailer has succeeded in putting this very onerous duty on to the merchants. Consequently, we find that those chambers of commence which represent retailers and inland interests are quite pleased with this Clause, for the reason not that they think it a good Clause in itself, but because they have succeeded in diverting the duty of marking to another class of trader. This Sub-section will mean a very appreciable addition to the difficulties of traders. For these reasons, the Sub-section ought to be deleted.
I shall not trespass on the question regarding foodstuffs. The situation which has arisen is a new one as far as the importation of foodstuffs is concerned. The House never intended on Second reading that importers of every class of goods should he subject to these restrictions and to the hardship of marking before importation. This is an entirely new matter which has not been before the House previously. The reason why merchants have been so much alarmed and why the larger chambers of commerce have addressed communications to Members of Parliament is that they feel it to be excessively unjust to impose this burden upon them in Committee and to alter the Bill in Committee
so much to their disadvantage. In essence this is a Second reading in the sense that we are dealing with matters that were not before the House at the Second reading, matters which have been put in the Bill since and which are no small matters, but which, according to the opinion of those best fitted to judge, irk our overseas trade, our buying and our industries. For those reasons I move this Amendment.

Mr. SCUFIR: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The objection which has been raised to this Clause in the form in which it is now presented to the House is twofold. In the first. place, it is alleged by the hon. Lady that the Committee has done something—she did not put it as high as a breach of faith, which I have heard it called sometimes—which overrode in some manner something which was present to the mind of the House when the Rill received a Second Reading. I entirely deny that there is any ground for that suggestion at all. I am glad that the charge of breach of faith has not been made, because breach of faith, if it means anything at all, means that a promise was given and then not kept. No one can say that any promise was given by His Majesty's Government that there, would be no marking on importation. Therefore, I do not deal with that at all, but come to the allegation that the House, when it gave a Second Reading to this Bill, was unaware that marking on importation of goods other than foodstuffs was an open question. I was most careful, as those who were present in the course of the Second Reading Debate will remember, to keep the whole of this point open. I thought it right to tell the House that the matter would be discussed in Committee and that I had an open mind on it. May I remind the House of what I said on the Second I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 12th May, col. 891:
As regards foodstuffs, the Order may also require that the marking should be done on importation or on exposure for sale wholesale Let me pause here to add this: The question whether there should be a discretion to order the marking of goods other than foodstuffs on importation is a question which, I think, will require careful consideration in Committee. In the majority of eases, probably, the system which is pro-
posed in the Bill will be the fairest and most convenient course.
I shall not read them to the House, but I then enumerated the considerations which must be present to the minds of any authority in ordering marking on importation or marking on sale:
There are no doubt cases—I do not wish to be dogmatic—for instance, cutlery and pottery, where, if marking is to he fully effective, it ought to be on importation. In such eases, the two particular cases I have cited, the entrepot trade is not large, and, therefore, that consideration does not arise, and I think there is a great deal to be said for giving a discretion to order marking on importation in special cases of that kind. That, I think, is a matter which may well be discussed in Committee, where it can be canvassed on its merits, and I shall certainly cuter upon it with my mind not in the least prejudiced against giving such a discretion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1926; cols. 891–2, Vol. 193.]
That being what I said myself when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, the claim that it is something which was introduced in Committee, and that it was not present to the mind of the House on Second Reading, is a claim which, I think, cannot be substantiated for a moment. Therefore, we are thrown back on the other question, which is a fitting one for debate and which was debated at great length in Committee, as to whether the balance of convenience is or is not in favour of giving a discretion to mark on importation synods other than foodstuffs. The discretion to mark foodstuffs is necessary. It will not be contended by anyone in the House that if you are to mark foodstuffs at, all, except practically the least perish able, the marking must be on importation if it is to be effective. Nobody has contested that assumption. Therefore, if you are to have the marking of foodstuffs at all, it is essential that there should he a discretion to order the marking of foodstuffs on importation. Apart from there not being a discretion to order the marking of other articles on importation, the hon. Lady, as she moved the Amendment, presented it in a way which would lead one to suppose that there was no discretion at all in this matter, that what was going to be done was that any article, however small its home production, however large its entrepot trade is is going to be swept into a general net of marking on importation. The hon. Lady will remember that there was an Amendment moved in Committee, that every-
thing should be marked on importation, and that I argued most strenuously against it, and the Committee rejected that. We are not dealing with that issue, but with the issue whether there should be a discretion in proper cases to mark on importation.
I am bound to say, having heard all the arguments here and those advanced in Committee, arguments supported by the weight of evidence and the recommendation of the Merchandise Marks Committee of 1920, which contemplated that if marking was to be effected in certain cases apart from foodstuffs it ought to be on importation, the House would be doing a wrong thing if it denied the Committee the opportunity of recommending whether marking should be on importation or not. Everybody with a substantial interest will have the right to be heard. The entrepot trade will have the right to be heard, and plainly one of the issues which will be before any tribunal of inquiry, on the question of whether marking shall be on importation or sale, will be what will be the effect upon the entrepot trade, and the case which can be marshalled on behalf of the entrepot trade will, I have no doubt, be most ably presented at the inquiry. After that the case will be considered by the Department, and if an order is made it has to come before the House, and anybody can present a Prayer against it. The hon. Lady is asking the House to say that a case for marking on importation cannot be made, though the entrepot trade may be small, though the only effective way of marking is marking on importation. I say frankly, if the principle of the Bill is approved by the House and if the principle of marking in approved cases has been approved by the House, we ought not to deprive, an industry of showing that the one effective way of marking is on importation, and if it can succeed in running the gauntlet of all the criticisms to which it will be exposed, then we ought to have the right to make such an order. The hon. Lady has drawn attention to the fact that this has now been adopted in the Bill. She has not drawn attention to the other Amendments which have been made in order still further to safeguard the interests of the entrepot trade.
It is expressly provided that the Committee is to take it into consideration. Sub-section (4) provides:
unless, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the re-export trade of the United Kingdom in that class or description of goods, it considers such action undesirable.
It is to be expressly considered by the Committee and by the Department. In order still further to safeguard the interests of the entrepôt trade, in cases where, on consideration, marking on importation is recommended, an entirely novel provision has been introduced, that is, that not only shad there be a right to import unmarked goods which pass through this country in the ordinary course of free transit, but, if the House will look at Clause 4 it says that the Clause
shall not apply to goods imported for exportation after transit through the United Kingdom or by way of transhipment.
And then comes the new provision which has been introduced to this effect:
or to goods declared on importation to be for re-exportation.
Therefore there is that additional safeguard introduced. The hon. Lady has said that if you mark on importation it means the prohibition of imports. Does she realise that in nearly every country in the world where goods are marked it is on importation? In fats, United States of America every single article imported has to be marked on importation, and yet that has not, prevented imports. I was rather surprised when she added that a third complication was introduced, that the Customs administration was added to that of the Board of Trade. Surely she realises that the Customs is the Department which has always administered merchandise marks legislation. It has had to carry out this administration ever since the Act of 1887 and after 40 years' experience it has to carry out the same principles and the same procedure as it has carried out under the 1887 Act. I submit that in all these circumstances we should do wrong if we did not give a discretion to industries to make out a case for making on importation.

Mr. HARRIS: The President of the Board of Trade has referred to his speech on the Second Reading in order to point
out that he kept some discretion to alter and broaden the Bill possibly to include manufactured goods. But he did not remind the house of the circumstances under which the Second Reading was taken. They were unique in the history of the House of Commons. It was the day of file conclusion of the General Strike, and the attention of hon. Members was entirely diverted from the ordinary affairs of Parliament. The newspaper Press had not got properly to work, and I suggest that there would have been far more criticism of the Bill if it had been introduced in other circumstances. At any rape we are assured by a great number of the trading interests of the country that when they undertook not to object to the Second Rending they were satisfied that manufactured goods were to be excluded.
No doubt many Members of the House have received a letter dated the 10th November from the London Chamber of Commerce. I understand the right hon. hon. Gentleman does not attach much importance to the views of the London Chamber of Commerce. It is true that the London Chamber of Commerce does represent trade interest. London is the centre of merchant and business houses, buy the right hon. Gentleman apparently considers this body despicable and beneath his contempt. The only way the 7,000,000 people around the River Thames live is by trade, and once you close the Port of London, once goods cease to come into the port for transshipment and re-export, London cannot live, the population must perish because it has no natural advantages from the possession of coalfields or situation I think the President of the Board of Trade ought to look for guidance to those people who claim to represent the trailers and business men of London, the greatest city in the world. Though he may attach importance to the Federation of British Industries he should pay as much attention to this important Chamber of Commerce, which, after all, is the greatest chamber of commerce in the world. What do they say? They point it out in their letter:
When the present Bill was first submitted to chambers of commerce it was recommended on the ground that a formula had been devised which should provide a reasonable safeguard to the interests of British entrepot trade. The Bill, which re-
ceived a Second Beading from the House of Commons on 12th May, contained a proviso that while an Agricultural Committee would be set up with the discretionary power to recommend the marking of imported foodstuffs prior to importation, the Board of Trade Committee would have no such power with regard to general merchandise.
In a statement, which they pasted justifying their case, they say:
I am now desired by my executive to point out that these gualifying Amendments appear quite inadeqante to safeguard the entrepot trade. In the ease of general merchandise the importer at the time of entry frequently does not knew who his eventual customers will be.
The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison with America. I contend that the trade of this country cannot be compared with that of any other country at all. We have been the trading centre of the world, the market of the world, owing to the fact that our poets are open. We have had the carrying trade of the world, and our mercantile marine has been built up because goods can pour into our ports, Liverpool, Hull, and so on. It is inevitable, if this machinery gets to work, if the Board of Trade can insist that large numbers of manufactured goods must be branded with the country of origin before impertation, that these goods will not conic to London for re-exportation. The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that under the Safeguarding of Industries Act a large number of articles which used to come to London for re-export are now going direct to their ultimate destination. Silk is one example. It used to come to London, to the warehouses in St. Paul's Churchyard and then distributed all over the world. That is ceasing. The South American traders are not coming to London to buy their silk. They are going to Lyons and Paris and Italy, and the goods are being shipped direct to the port of destination. That may seem to the right hon. Gentleman an unimportant thing but it strikes a blow at the City of London. It means less employment to the dockers, less employment to case-makers, to carmen, warehousemen, and clerks, and all the thousands of people employed in the City of London.
In their letter, and also in their Resolution, the London Chamber of Commerce point out that our entrepot trade is worth something like £1.65,000,000 per year. That is a gigantic trade, and it is a great
help to our banking industry. Lombard Street is not likely to benefit by trade being diverted from London. Nor is the shipping business so very good. Our steamers are not going out full. One trouble is that half our steamers are going out in ballast because they cannot get the necessary cargoes. The German shipping industry had a tremendous setback during the War, but in the last three or four years a great deal of building has been going on at Amsterdam and Hamburg, and Germany is re-establishing her mercantile marine. Under this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is making a present to the mercantile marine of Germany, for which they will bless him, because under the Regulations these articles will no longer come to London. It is very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman has yielded to the pressure of some of his agricultural friends who are crying out for Protection. Of course, the Potteries are asking for goods to be branded in Germany, because they want to be free from the competition of German pottery, and, of course, various manufacturers who failed to get Protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Act are trying to get Protection by a side wind, by handicapping producers abroad. I think they are shortsighted and that it would be far better for them to concentrate on getting a foreign trade. Unfortunately, manufacturers too often take a shortsighted view. They do not consider the wellbeing of the country as a whole. They are inclined to ignore the consumer and to take the easier road. The whole of history proves that. They seek a protected market. But we ought to expect a larger view from the President of the Board of Trade. At any rate, he must not forget that he represents a Government which is pledged not to interfere with Free Trade, in this Parliament at any rate.
The right hon. Gentleman is a Protectionist at heart, I know, but he is a member of a Government which has a Free Trade Chancellor of the Exchequer. Moreover, the Prime Minister is pledged not to tamper with Free Trade in this Parliament. Bills of this kind may not be a technical breach of that pledge, but they are a breach of the spirit of it. I hope that some business men on the other
side who are members of Chambers of Commerce, who know the real interests of the country and how important it is for us to maintain our trade in spite of world competition, how important it is to look after our shipping industry, will make a protest against this foolish and ill-thought-out legislation, which has no public demand behind it and is against the wishes of the most important trade centres of the country. Liverpool has protested, Manchester has protested, and Luton and London have protested. It may be that Little Pedlington is in favour of it, or that Hendon demands it, but I am satisfied that the most experienced traders in the country do not want this Clause, and I hope that the House will reject it.

Mr. RILEY: The President of the Board of Trade has said that the real purpose is to give a discretion to the responsible committee, and not to enforce a general prohibition against importation. But, as the Clause stands, it empowers the committee to lay down a prohibition against the importation of all kinds of goods, whether manufactured or foodstuffs, if they so desire. The Clause says that if it appears to the committee to be desirable that any imported goods should bear an indication of origin at the time of importation, and the committee so report to the appropriate Department, that Department may make a representation to His Majesty, and His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make provision accordingly. It is all very well for the President to say that this matter is within the discretion of the committee. I am not prepared to give discretion to the kind of committee that is likely to be set up, and I am certainly not prepared to give a discretion to the President of the Board of Trade with his predilections. I am certain that in operation the Clause will be a hindrance to trade, if not absolutely impracticable.
What are the facts of the case in one or two respects? If the power is used under this Sub-section it will be competent for any committee set up to lay down a Regulation that any goods may be entirely prohibited unless at the time of importation they bear the name of the country of origin. It has been pointed out that there is a provision whereby, if such goods are for re-export, discretion
will he used and the Clause would not apply. But take the case of importation here the importer declares his intention of re-exporting, and before the exportation takes place some accident occurs, the order is cancelled, and the goods intended for re-export have no longer a market available for them. What is to be done? The man cannot sell the goods, because they have not been marked. From that aspect I think the Sub-section will prove impracticable.
It has already been pointed out that when this Clause came, before the Standing Committee it referred only to foodstuffs. In Committee the word "foodstuffs" was eliminated and the word "goods" was put in its place. Therefore, into the net of possible prohibition there conies all classes of goods, both manufactured and foodstuffs. I wish to see the Clause deleted because it applies to manufactured goods and to foodstuffs. What are the practical aspects with regard to the importation of foodstuffs? There are cargoes, in the season, coming to the Port of London and to other ports every day of the week, all classes of vegetable and fruit products of a perishable kind. When we bear in mind that the promoters of this policy are particularly desirous of having the Bill applied to foodstuffs, so as to protect British agricultural products as against supplies from other countries, we are entitled to conclude that a good deal of latitude will be given to any committee which is prepared to operate these powers for the exclusion of foodstuffs. I want to avoid the inconvenience of the free importation of necessary fruit, vegetable and other foodstuffs being interfered with in any way whatever.
I have in mind the West Riding of Yorkshire. In the industrial towns there, during the summer months, the wholesale dealers in imported fruit and vegetables, having to handle perishable goods and not feeling that they can depend upon the railway services, send motor lorries from Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield, and Halifax to the port of Hull. They meet the incoming steamers in order to get the consignments without delay and place them on the market as early as possible. If this Sub-section stands, it will be competent for the committee visualised in this Clause to order that no vegetables or fruits shall be
allowed to come in unless they are marked on importation. You will then have the practical difficulty that when steamers arrive in ports like Hull with cargoes of perishable goods—which, if not disposed of on the day of arrival, will be useless the next day—the wholesale dealers will be compelled to wait until each package has been marked with the country of origin. It will mean losing a market and wasting the goods. That policy is wasteful, and is detrimental to the interests of the consumer. Take the case of the great shipments of meat and other foodstuffs from South America, South Africa and various other countries, where the exporters frequently do not know the actual port of destination when the goods are shipped. A consignment of meat to which this provision will apply may be shipped in a South American port for Antwerp, but when the vessel is on the high seas, the trader may learn that there is a better market in London, and the cargo is diverted to London. If such goods have not been marked they cannot be allowed to come in here. On those grounds I support the deletion of the Sub-section.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. BARNES: It may or may not be desirable to include general merchandise in this system of marking, hut it. will be agreed that if legislation of this kind is to be promoted at all, it should not be done in Committee when the point involved has not been brought out in the Second Reading Debate and printed in the early copies of the Bill. It is for the purpose of drawing the attention of this House and the public to the fact that wide and fundamental changes have been made in this Bill since Second Reading that we move the deletion of this Sub-section. The Bill, as it was introduced, ostensibly tried to secure to the consumer a knowledge of the origin of the foodstuffs sold to him, and large sections of trade did not press their opposition to the Bill on the Second Reading—which is the usual opportunity for criticising legislation of this kind— because of the implied guarantee that general merchandise would not be included in its provisions. The President of the Board of Trade now urges as an excuse that in moving the Second Reading of the Bill he made some passing
reference to the fact that in Committee he would Consider the inclusion of general merchandise. I submit that is not the way in which legislation is usually dealt with in this House. If any important principle is to be embodied in a Bill, the Government usually take responsibility for it at the outset, and disclose it in print in the early stages. Debates in the full Chamber on Second Reading obtain fuller publicity than the Committee proceedings, and I contend that to make a far-reaching change of this sort in Committee is a breach of faith with Parliament generally.
A change of attitude on the part of large sections of trade in this country took place from the time when this Amendment was permitted in Committee. The President of the Board of Trade today has used the same words as those which he used repeatedly upstairs. He has said that if small sections of the entrepot trade in this country which are interfered with by the Bill, that is no reason why the larger trading and manufacturing interests should not have the advantages which the Bill is supposed to confer. But it is these small parcels of trade which make up the aggregate of the trading figures of this country. If we examine the aggregate of £165,000,000 in detail we shall find that it is made up of a multitude of small parcels of this covering a great variety of articles. This is not only a question of the quantity of business which passes through the entrepot trade of this country, but of the reaction which this proposal will have on labour and on commerce generally. In London, Liverpool and Manchester great numbers of people earn their living from this form of trade. Are we to take it that it is criminal for people to engage in business of this kind: that it represents an illegitimate kind of trade as compared with manufactures? No one wishes to belittle the importance of any trading or manufacturing interest, but in this Bill those interests are being pitted against the interests of another section of legitimate traders. That is where the injury ultimately will develop.
As the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) has pointed out, the evidence connected with a good deal of this trade cannot be submitted to these committees because while they are sitting importers in the one case and exporters
in the other may not be able to determine beforehand what portion of the particular goods is to be retained in this country and what portion is to be earmarked for re-export. We are introducing a complication into national trade. It would have been better had the Government limited this Bill to the original intention. This is a class of legislation which should be built up from experience. There is no opposition to the original intention that the consumers should know what they are buying. If there is unanimity en that fundamental principle, it would 1.e far better to deal with this legislation in piece-meal fashion, taking first one category of goods, trying it out by experience, and building up, as a result of experience, a maximum amount of unity and support in the community. But by introducing in this half-secretive fashion legislation that will dislocate large sections of trade in this country, you will only bring about the maximum amount of friction with the minimum amount of good.

Mr. MORRISON: I rise to put only one question. Surely, after all the arguments which have been brought. forward from this side of the House, we are entitled to have at least some further reply from the Minister.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: On that point. I replied at very considerable length after the speeches had been delivered on the other side and after I had waited to see whether any other speeches were to lie delivered, and I received an intimation that my hon. Friend was not intending to speak. I cannot agree that it is in the public interest that we should reiterate the same statements.

Mr. MORRISON: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken, and that he made a fairly comprehensive answer to the points which were put to him. But since then, several other Members have spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), and I think consideration should be given to the points which they have brought forward.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was extraordinarily interested in the speech the hon. Member made, but it did not raise any new issue.

Mr. GILLETT: I should like to refer, not to the fact that no second reply has been given by the Minister, but to the fact that we have not heard a single word from the Back Benches on the other side on this subject. An hon. Member has referred to the letter which has been sent to hon. Members of this House by the London Chamber of Commerce. The London Chamber of Commerce largely consists of members who are supporters the present Government, and it seems amazing that no Member on the benches behind the Minister has voiced the opinions of the large body of persons whose views have been expressed in that letter. It does seem an amazing thing just at this time, when we have probably arrived at the end of the coal stoppage, aid when there are hopes of a trade revival, that all that the President of the Board of Trade has to propose is to bring certain additional barriers which will prevent the traders getting to work in the way in which it is desired. When we think of the difficulties that trade has suffered from in regard to the position on the Continent, when we boar in mind that it is beginning to improve, we find that the Minister proposes to set up committees, which can sit in private, and which at any tune may put into force greater restrictions, which all add to the difficulties of trading at the present time. It is often said that Members on this side make proposals which would lead to the appointment of fresh officials. But by this kind of thing, and by the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the safeguarding of industries, you only lead to the appointment of more

and more officials, and, although it may be a small point, you are imposing more work upon the staffs of the merchants and thereby adding to the cost of trade. The newspapers which support hon. Members opposite are constantly complaining of the weight of taxation and things of that kind, but, as soon as the Minister brings forward a proposal of this sort, no reference is made to the cost—though it may be small, it is cumulative—which is to be thrown open the merchants of the City of London.

It seems an amazing thing that, when we have such a protest from the London Chamber of Commerce, no hon. Member representing the City of London has spoken, and there is no Member of the City who is even in the Chamber at the present time. A considerable part of my constituency may be said to be almost part of the City, lying just outside its boundary, and it has very large financial and business interests. I venture, therefore, to put before the House the case of the large numbers of people, however much it may be beneficial to other people, to whom the proposals of the President of the Board of. Trade, if they are put into force and the more they are put into force, will mean greater hindrances to their trade, and increased duties and responsibilities placed upon trade, which at the present time, an hon. Members opposite know well, has too many difficulties to bear.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'should' in line 20, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 89.

Division No. 475.]
AYES.
[10.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon William Clive
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.


Albery, Irving James
Briggs, J. Harold
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brittain, sir Harry
Cope, Major William


Apsley, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)


Astor, Viscountess
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bullock, Captain M.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Balniel, Lord
Burman, J. B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Campbell, E. T.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Bennett, A. J.
Cassels, J. D.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Dawson, Sir Phillip


Blundell, F. N.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Drewe, C.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Clarry, Reginald George
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Clayton, G. C.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Brass, Captain W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Ellis, R. G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ropner, Major L.


Elveden, Viscount
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Rye, F. G.


England, Colonel A.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandon, Lord


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Savery, S. S.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Fermoy, Lord
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Fielden, E. B.
Loder, J. de V.
Skelton, A. N.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Looker, Herbert William
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Smithers, Waldron


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Fraser, Captain Ian
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)
Storry-Deans, R.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
McLean, Major A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacMillan, Captain H.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Gates, Percy
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macquisten, F. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Goff, Sir Park
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Templeton, W. P.


Gower, Sir Robert
Malone, Major P. B.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Grace, John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)
Meller, R. J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Meyer, Sir Frank
Tinne, J. A.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Waddington, R.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hammersley, S. S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hanbury, C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison, H. (Wills, Salisbury)
Watts, Dr. T.


Hartington, Marquess of
Murchison, C. K.
Wells, S. R.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Neville, R. J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Hawke, John Anthony
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nuttall, Ellis
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
O'Connor, T. J, (Bedford, Luton)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Penny, Frederick George
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Withers, John James


Herbert, S. (York, N. R-,Scar. & Wh'by)
Perring, Sir William George
Wolmer, Viscount


Hills, Major John Waller
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Womersley, W. J.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hogg, Rt, Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Radford, E. A.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raine, W.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ramsden, E.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hurd, Percy A.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wragg, Herbert


Hurst, Gerald B.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remer, J. R.



James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rhys, Hon C. A. U.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jephcott, A. R.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Captain Margesson and Major Hennessy.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gillett, George M.
March, S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gosling, Harry
Maxton, James


Baker, J. (Wofverhamton, Bilston)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick


Baker, Walter
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Groves, T.
Naylor, T. E.


Barnes, A.
Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold


Barr, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Owen, Major G.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Palin, John Henry


Briant, Frank
Hardie, George D.
Paling, W


Bromley, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Buchanan, G.
Hartshorn, Rt, Hon. Vernon
Potts, John S.


Charleton, H. C.
Hayday, Arthur
Purcell, A. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hirst, G. H.
Riley, Ben


Compton, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Connolly, M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cove, W. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Scrymgeour, E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kennedy, T.
Scurr, John


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dennison, R.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Duncan, C
Lee, F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gardner, J. P.
Lowth, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gibbins, Joseph
Lunn, William
Stamford, T. W.




Stephen, Campbell
Wallhead, Richard C.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sullivan, Joseph
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Windsor, Walter


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Webb, Rt. Hon, Sidney
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Whiteley, W.



Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wiggins, William Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.


Townend, A. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 20, after the word "goods," to insert the words "being foodstuffs."—[Mr. Harris.]

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 228.

Division No. 476.]
AYES.
[10.21 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, Walter
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, J.


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Colonel Harry
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Duncan, C.
Naylor, T. E.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gosling, Harry
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Purcell, A. A.



Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Sir Robert Hutchison and Major Owen.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Campbell, E. T.
Elveden, Viscount


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cassels, J. D.
England, Colonel A.


Albery, Irving James
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Evans, Captain A, (Cardiff, South)


Apsley, Lord
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Astor, Viscountess
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Clarry, Reginald George
Fermoy, Lord


Balniel, Lord
Clayton, G. C.
Fielden, E. B.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ford, Sir P. J.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Bennett, A. J.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cope, Major William
Frece, Sir Walter de


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Blundell, F. N.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gates, Percy


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Brass, Captain W.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Goff, Sir Park


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Gower, Sir Robert


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Grace, John


Briggs, J. Harold
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumbld., N.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Drewe, C.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bullock, Captain M.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Burman, J. B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hammersley, S. S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ellis, R. G.
Hanbury, C.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hartington, Marquess of
Malone, Major P. B.
Smithers, Waldron


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Haslam, Henry C.
Meller, R. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hawke, John Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Storry-Deans, R.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. H. (Ayr)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hills, Major John Walter
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Templeton, W. P.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Murchison, C. K.
Thom, Lt. Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Neville, R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hurd, Percy A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Tinne, J. A.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Nuttall, Ellis
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Penny, Frederick George
Waddington, R.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Jephcott, A. R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Perring, Sir William George
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Watts, Dr. T.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wells, S. R.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Price, Major C. W. M.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Radford, E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Raine, W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ramsden, E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Loder, J. de V.
Remer, J. R.
Withers, John James


Locker, Herbert William
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lord, Waller Greaves-
Rice, Sir Frederick
Womersley, W. J


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hush Vere
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wood, D. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ropner, Major L.
Wood, E. (Chester, Staly'b'gc & Hyde)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rye, F. G.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


McLean, Major A.
Sandon, Lord
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Savery, S. S.
Wragg, Herbert


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wills, Westb'y)



Macquisten, F. A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Skelton, A. N.
Captain Lord Stanley and Captain Margesson.

Further Amendments made: Ire page line 27, after the first word "Majesty," insert the words
that it is desirable that the goads should bear an indication of origin at the time of importation.
In line 29, leave out the words "the preceding Sub-section," and insert instead thereof "Sub-section (1) of this Section."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move in page 4, line 3, after the word "re-exportation," to insert the words
or the ultimate destination of which is not determined at the time of importation.
It is very important in this entrepot trade that every opportunity should be provided in the Bill in order that the traders may feel that they have some security in regard to retaining that very important business. I rather gather that hon. Members opposite think this business is not worth preserving, but I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be of the opinion that, every attempt should
be made to protect the business of these merchants engaged In the entrepot trade which has been of such a tremendous assistance to this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take the view that opposition to this Clause is not worth conciliating. I suggest that by accepting the words which I have proposed the Government would be showing a very sincere desire not to interfere unduly with this kind of business, because it is very difficult to say where the ultimate destination of some of these articles will be. The English trade covers so many markets and trade centres that the only way it can exist is by being able to send tae goods to another market when one market is closed, perhaps because of the rate of exchange or of some upheaval. Whatever the cause may be, I think the insertion of words of this character are necessary if we wish to reassure the merchants of this country that their business will not be unduly interfered with by this Section.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir B. CHADWICK: I would like to point out to the House that the Bill does not provide for universal compulsory marking, but only where a case has been made out for it. Already in the Amendment introduced into Sub-section (4) hon. Members will see that we have gone a very long way to meet the point which the mover of this Amendment desires should be met, by the insertion of the Words
having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the re-export trade of the United Kingdom.
There is also the proviso that the order
shall not apply to goods imported for exportation after transport through the United Kingdom.

this proviso is
subject to compliance with such conditions as to security for the re-exportation of the goods as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may impose.

I think the hon. Member will agree that his Amendment is already very largely provided for in the Bill. There is another very important point about the Amendment, and that is that, even if it were desirable to insert it, the difficulties which it would introduce into the working of the Measure would completely outweigh any advantages, because it would provide every possible kind of loophole for evasion. I hope, accordingly, that the House will not accept it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 225.

Division No. 477.]
AYES.
[10.37 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, J. (Wofverhamton, Bilston)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Riley, Ben


Baker, Walter
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Briant, Frank
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromley, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Whiteley, W.


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Wiggins, William Martin


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


England, Colonel A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Sir Robert Hutchison and Major


Groves, T.
Purcell, A. A.
Owen.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Blundell, F. N.
Campbell, E. T.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cassels, J. D.


Albery, Irving James
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Apsley, Lord
Brass, Captain W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Astor, Viscountess
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Clarry, Reginald George


Atholl, Duchess of
Briggs, J. Harold
Clayton, G. C.


Balniel, Lord
Briscoe, Richard George
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D,


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Bullock, Captain M.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Bennett, A. J.
Burman, J. B.
Cope, Major William


Betterton, Henry B.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Remer, J. R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Dalziel, Sir Davison
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jephcott, A. R.
Ropner, Major L.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rye, F. G.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dawson, Sir Phillip
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sandon, Lord


Drewe, C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Savery, S. S.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lane Fox, Col, Rt. Hon. George R.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Ellis, R. G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Elveden, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Skelton, A. N.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Loder, J. de V.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Looker, Herbert William
Smithers, Waldron


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Ford, Sir p. J.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Storry-Deans, R.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McLean, Major A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Fraser, Captain Ian
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Frece, Sir Walter de
Macquisten, F. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Templeton, W. P.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Malone, Major P. B.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gates, Percy
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meller, R. J.
Tinne, J. A.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Waddington, R.


Grace, John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watts, Dr. T.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Wells, S. F.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murchison, C. K.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Hammersley, S. S.
Neville, R. J.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hanbury, C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Harrison, G. J. C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hartington, Marquess of
Nuttall, Ellis
Wise, Sir Fredric


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Withers, John James


Haslam, Henry C.
Penny, Frederick George
Wolmer, Viscount


Hawke, John Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Womersley, W. J.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Booth)
Perring, Sir William George
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R-.Scar. & Wh'by)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hills, Major John Waller
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wragg, Herbert


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Radford, E. A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raine, W.



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsden, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Major Hennessy and Captain Margesson

Mr. MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, at the end, to insert the words
(5) This Section shall not apply to goods imported for the purpose of forming part of or for use with other manufactured goods, or for the purposes of replacement, repair, or maintenance, and which goods so imported are—

(a) of so small a size as to render marking impracticable; or
(b) of such a nature that marking would impair their efficiency; or
(c) of such a nature that it would not be practically possible to apply either at all or effectively an indication of origin."
This is another effort to try to get the Board of Trade or the Government out of some of the difficulties into which they are likely to get as a result of this Bill. The difficulties will be numerous, because of the extraordinary amount of confusion in the minds of all those who are interested in the Bill from the business point of view. All manner of constructions are being put upon the different Clauses. The words which I have moved are intended to cover very small articles which are to be used for replacements. There are many English commodities which have small foreign parts, and it is obvious that if anything is to be done
by legislation to prevent these parts from being replaced when they are worn out, it will cause very serious loss to a number of people. Possibly, the objection may come from the right hon. Gentleman that it would be impossible to differentiate as to which articles are for replacements. In case the right hon. Gentleman urges that objection, I would suggest that the goods covered by my Amendment will be imports coming to manufacturers and not to wholesalers or retailers. Therefore, it would be possible from that point of view to fix exactly in the Bill the particular goods that I am endeavouring to exempt by my Amendment.
The Bill in its present form may mean the prohibition of the importation of vital parts required for many articles. Let me give the House a few examples of articles that may be prohibited under this Bill, and, I think hon. Members will agree, somewhat unfairly prohibited. First, the wheels, springs and other parts of watches and clocks may be prohibited from coming into this country. Secondly, nipples and other small parts of Primus stoves may be prohibited, or it may be difficult to get them in under this Bill, thirdly, the small parts of gas appliances, and, fourthly, the small, delicate parts of electrical appliances. All these parts will be required, and they only come in as component parts of other articles which are manufactured and sold in this country. It will be difficult and almost impossible in many cases because, of the minuteness of the articles to make any mark upon them. I am certain that upon the small wheels or spring's of a watch it will not be possible to stamp the words "Manufactured in Czechoslovakia" or "Manufactured in Switzerland," or anything of that sort. That, again, may raise the whole question of marking the containers. I do not wish to be definitely tied down to the exact words of the Amendment. I feel sure that the President of the Board of Trade will realise the genuine difficulties that will arise in trying to carry this proposal into effect, and I hope he will be able, if he does not accept my words, to accept some words that will deal with the matter.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would remind the House that the effect of it would be to confine the pro-
hibition practically to complete articles. It is better to confine interference with trade to the complete article which may compete with some other complete article of British manufacture. As the Clause stands, the prohibition may apply to every part of a composite article. However many parts it may consist of, the prohibition may apply to every single one. Absurd cases are bound to arise if the Clause stands as at present. Let me take two simple examples. There is a considerable trade done in this country in pocket knives of various types where the blades are made in Sheffield and the ornamented sides of the knife with special patterns stamped on them come from a foreign country. It is a class of work which is not done in Sheffield, although I am not saying it, could not be done in Sheffield. These ornamented sides are attractive, and manufacturers of cutlery in Sheffield find it advantageous to import them and by so doing to expand their own manufacture of blades. As this Clause stands there is a difficulty in the way of the continuance of that trade. Again, there is a simple thing like an ordinary lead pencil with a little bit of rubber at the end united by a piece of metal. I understand from the trade that the three parts are often made in different countries, the metal coming from Sheffield, the pencil from Bavaria and the rubber from some other country. This Amendment is devised to meet that difficulty and I hope it will be accepted.

Sir B. CHADWICK: There are very good reasons for not accepting this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman who moved spoke of replacements, but, great difficulty would arise through this if the Amendment were accepted. It would be impossible to distinguish between parts coming in for replacement and others. He says those goods would go to manufacturers, but I do not see that that follows at all. A number of these goods would go to shops selling parts of other goods. Again, we have met his case by the words in Sub-section 6 of Clause 2. If the hon. Gentleman will look at line 35, he will find that an Order cannot be recommended if the Department considers that it is practically impossible to apply the indication of origin effectively or without injury. That I think is a clear answer to his point as to the impossibility of marking.

Major CRAWFURD: The hon. Member who has replied began his remarks by saying that he proposed to give one or two good reasons for rejecting the Amendment. He gave a partial answer. I admit his reply was cogent as far as it went, but his answer really dealt with matters of detail, and there is a far larger matter of principle lying behind the Amendment than mere questions of detail. Earlier in the evening we were told by a colleague of the President of the Board of Trade that, as far as he was concerned, he was principally concerned with the producer, and I shall not be far wrong if I assume that the right hon. Gentleman himself and Members opposite are also concerned principally with the producer.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: We are.

Major CRAWFURD: I am encouraged by that observation. The hon. and gallant Member who has this cause so much at heart—may I say, without any offence, has it much more in his heart than in his head—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]—I can hardly withdraw to please hon. Members opposite without withdrawing what the hon. and gallant Member has said.

Sir H. CROFT: I take it as a compliment from you, at any rate.

Major CRAWFURD: Then everybody is pleased, and we can pass on to the next argument. In conversation with hon. Members belonging to the party opposite they have told rue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I understand it would be outside the Rules of Order to mention hon. Members by name. [HON. MEMBERS: "Constituency!"] They have told me that they are interested in the producer, or, as one hon. Member said, they have the interests of the British working man at heart. There is a School of thought, still represented on the benches opposite, which believes that you are actually helping the British working man by preventing the importation of foreign goods into this country. I suggest that if the hon. Member who replied on behalf of the Government would leave the word "replacement," upon which some attention has been concentrated, and go back to the words immediately preceding it, "imported for the purpose
of forming part of or for use with other manufactured goods," he would come to the Amendment, which in my view embodies a very large principle. And the principle is this, that if you are going to stop the importation of foreign goods which are used in the manufacture of other goods you are going to inflict a very grave blow indeed upon employment in this country to the detriment of the producer whom the Government and hon. Members opposite are always saying they are out to benefit.

It being Eleven of the Clock the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to promote the provision of housing accommodation for agricultural workers and for person s whose economic condition is substantially the same as that of such workers and the improvement of such accommodation, by authorising the giving of financial assistance rewards the reconstruction and improvement of houses and other buildings, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any exp[...] incurred by the Minister of Health under the said Act, including any contributions made by him towards any expenses incurred by a local authority in making grants under the said Act in respect of dwellings, subject always to the following conditions:

(a) the application for assistance must have been received by the local authority before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-one;
(b) in calculating the amount of a contribution no account shall be taken of such part, if any, of the grant in respect of the dwelling as exceeds either two-thirds of the estimated cost of the works in respect of which the grant was made, or the sum of one hundred pounds:

Provided that where a grant is made by the provision of periodical sums the amount of the grant shall be taken to be an amount equal to the capital value of the sums to be so provided calculated as on the date of the completion of the works;

(c) any such contributions shall be made by way of annual payments for a period of twenty years from the completion of the works in respect of which the grant was made and shall be an amount equal to one-half of the estimated average annual payments falling to be made by the local authority in respect of the
185
charges on account of loans raised by the authority for the purposes of grants, or which would have fallen to be so made if the sums expended by the local authority (In account of the grant has been raised by means of loans."

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I do not rise to delain the House for more than a few moments. But I feel it necessary, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, again to register our protest against this unwarrantable waste of public money, and against the attempt to nationalise the worst dwellings in the countryside, and at the same time to retain them in the hands of private owners. We think that this Measure is uncalled for and that the solution of this problem is not to be found in any attempt to improve existing cottages, valuable though that may be, and we regard it as un-

fortunate that the Government, while insisting on economies in other directions and whilst preparing the ground for a reduction in the State subsidy for new houses, should at this juncture have decided to come to the aid of private landlords in the countryside by means of substantial grants of public money, in order to enable them to put their houses into habitable repair. We do not think that this policy can be defended either in this House or in the country. We made our protest as strongly as Wit mild in the Committee stage of the Money Resolution, and all that I propose to do now is to declare that it is our intention to force this issue info the Division. Lobby in order to render the most effective protest possible against this unwarranted expenditure of public money.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 70.

Division No. 478.]
AYES.
[11.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Haslam, Henry C.


Agg-Gardncr, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hawke, John Anthony


Albery, Irving James
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Apsley, Lord
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Astor, Viscountess
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Atholl, Duchess of
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by]


Baldwin, nt. Hen. Stanley
Dawson, Sir Phillip
Hills, Major John Waller


Balniel, Lord
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hogg, Rt. Hon, Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Drewe, c.
Hofbrock, Sir Arthur Richard


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Ellis, R. G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
England, Colonel A.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Jephcott, A. R.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brass, Captain W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fermoy, Lord
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Briggs, J. Harold
Fielden, E. B.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Briscoe, Richard George
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Brittain, Sir Harry
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Foster, Sir Harpy S.
Loder, J. de V.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Looker, Herbert William


Bullock, Captain M.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Burman, J. S.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ganzoni, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Campbell, E. T.
Gates, Percy
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Goff, Sir Park
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, F. A.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grace, John
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Clayton, G. C.
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Malone, Major P. B.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Margesson, Captain D.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hammersley, S. S.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cope, Major William
Hanbury, C.
Meller, R. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Rye, F. G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Waddington, R.


Murchison, C. K.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Warner, Brigadier-General W W.


Neville, R. J.
Sandon, Lord
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watts, Dr. T.


Nuttall, Ellis
Savery, S. S.
Wells, S. R.


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Owen, Major G.
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wiggins, William Martin


Penny, Frederick George
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Perring, Sir William George
Smithers, Waldron
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Power, Sir John Cecil
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Withers, John James


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Storry-Deans, R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Womersley, W. J.


Radford, E. A.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Raine, W.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Ramsden, E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Sugden, sir Wilfred
Wragg, Herbert


Remer, J. R.
Templeton, W. P.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)



Rice, Sir Frederick
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Richardson, Sir P. W.(Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Major Hennessy and Captain Lord Stanley.


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Tinne, J. A.



Ropner, Major L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.


Baker, Walter
Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Riley, Ben


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bromley, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Sullivan, J.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry



Groves, T.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. B. Smith.


Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 27th September,

proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.